Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
CR91

Colts trade out of first round

Recommended Posts

Just now, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

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?

 

I honestly thought he'd go in the top 15. I went as high as the jets at 3 at one point. Teams love that size/speed ratio. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could see the colts going for jalen jelks of oregon with one of their 2nd or 3rd round picks.  A quality edge.   

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd so much rather have AJ Brown than Metcalf. Brown seems like somebody who'd thrive here under Reich. Metcalf, not so much IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch out for Denver. They still might want lock. If they think he is a franchise qb they could make a trade with us and give up quite a bit.

 

Everyone has to remember we are returning almost every starter. So trading down and getting depth is smart. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Denver has two second round picks. I could see us trading our 34 for 41 and a pick in 2020. Maybe even both of their second round picks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Denver has two second round picks. I could see us trading our 34 for 41 and a pick in 2020. Maybe even both of their second round picks.

i dont think the other GM's on this team would approve :sarcasm:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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.

 

yes and it was stupid. This is horrible value. I do it ALWAYS when I'm the side of the team getting the 1st and pretty much never do it if I'm on the side giving up the 1st.


 

Quote

 

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.) 

 

 

 

This is a while ago... the analytics have been coming into the league the last several years and the Pats are among the teams using pure expected value assessment to win draft trades for a while now. I cannot pinpoint the exact moment it started but it has been the case at least the last 3 years. 

 

Quote

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?

30 is an exaggeration for demonstration purposes. In reality the difference in most of those trades is probably closer to 10-15 slots... but it's still a difference in favor of the team that's getting the future pick. Like we did in the other thread with potential Browns future 1st for 34... If the expected value of the Browns pick is around #20 and we are giving up #34 that's 14 spots difference(if you assume the two drafts are generally of similar strength) and in the WORST case scenario(the browns win the Superbowl), the difference is still 2 slots in favor of the team getting the future pick.  

 

Quote

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.

Not if you have the job-security to make the future pick. The future pick is every bit as secure for the team as the current one is. It's just one year in the future. And it has better value because the general strength of drafts is usually similar, so you get higher pick... you just get it a year later. 

 

Quote

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.

OF COURSE I WOULD STILL DO IT! This is the whole point. Lets eliminate the 1st because it makes the case on my side even more pronounced because of the extra year. Lets say I could trade #70 in this draft for 2022 second. I absolutely would do it.  This is my point! This is a value proposition. If I had job security for the next 5-10 years, I would do trades like this. Hell I would do 3d for 2035 2nd even ... if I knew I would be here in 2035 to benefit from that pick. Now you cannot do them ALL the time and with ALL the picks, because you would be left with no steady stream of young players, but if you space out your picks well, it's a no brainer to do a trade or two like that every year... even if it's for 20 years in the future. This is the extreme example and I would still do it, we are talking about 1 year in the future for the most part here. 

 

Quote

 

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!' 

 

 

 

This is not my argument. For this argument it matters the quality of the picks simply because different positions have different expected value. 

 

Quote

 

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.

 

I agree, this was not my argument. I was talking more about general evaluation of future picks, not about this specific case... although the specific case helps illustrate the argument.

 

Quote

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 agree, very likely Ballard had all of his top 15 players he said he thought were very high quality, gone... so... he decided to trade down because as he stated 15 to 70 in this specific draft have very similar evaluations on our board.

 

Quote

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.

Even if it's 64, the pure value is still OK to good. IMO teams should have probability distribution for where the Redskins are expected to finish and evaluate future picks this way. If we did the simplest of evaluations and used the early Vegas odds that put the Redskins line at 6 wins, we would get a pick around the low 40s... Which again... would be a huge win by pretty much any value chart available. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, John Waylon said:

 

And how much can change between now and then?

 

The whole concept of metrics relies on tangible numbers. Not speculation. We’re not talking about the front office and what they think or what their plan is or how they or anyone view next year’s class or anything else. We’re talking ONLY about the assignment of a numeric value to a future pick that has a host of variables that determine its actual value 

 

To try to saddle these future draft selections with a numeric value and use that as a justification of its value is a roll of the dice. It’s bad science. 

Most of any possible change a year from now us to the up side...   not the down.

 

The known side are the players who are seniors, and will be coming out.  The down side are the kids who get hurt, but that’s never a large number who suffer career ending injuries, they typically suffer season ending injuries. That’s baked into any cake.  Happens every year.   

 

But the upside is which underclassman are coming out?   That’s not known until January.  That’s when kids make it official.  That’s not baked into the cake as roughly 60-100 kids turn pro early these days. 

 

Scouts are always looking ahead.  The year Grigson drafted four offensive lineman (kelly, Clark, Haeg, Blythe) the Scouts had told him the next years class looks very disappointing at the OL positions.   Grigson shared that. Turns out they were right.   That was Ballard’s first class and it was called historically, one of the wurst years for OL talent anyone could recall.  Ballard didn’t address the OL until the bottom of the 4th round with Banner who busted.  That was the kind of year it was.    But point is....  the scouts knew.   They were right.   That’s why I have faith that Ballard has traded for a pick that would appear to be top-40.   

 

An an additional top-40 pick has real value,   That’s not speculation.   Sorry this post went so long. 

Share this post


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

 

 

Didnt get a ton for #26...doubt they get a ton for 34.

 

I don’t mind moving back a few spots...but definitely not back into middle-late 2nd round.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

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

 

I'm just thinking about a real evaluation of him as a player and a prospect, not just his athletic profile. On tape, I don't see a top prospect. If you draft him, you have to see him as a project who needs a lot of work. And there are a lot of highly athletic project players who never turn into good players in the NFL, especially at WR. 

 

I'd take that chance on Day 3. I think there are too many good players that don't require the level of projection that Metcalf does, and I'd rather have them than him. JMO. I know other people are very much in love with him, and his traits are very impressive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll reserve judgment on trading once i see what the players picked between now and our next pick do, and then how our traded for picks pan out.

 

That being said. It sucks staying up 2 hours past your normal bedtime to see us trade out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm just thinking about a real evaluation of him as a player and a prospect, not just his athletic profile. On tape, I don't see a top prospect. If you draft him, you have to see him as a project who needs a lot of work. And there are a lot of highly athletic project players who never turn into good players in the NFL, especially at WR. 

 

I'd take that chance on Day 3. I think there are too many good players that don't require the level of projection that Metcalf does, and I'd rather have them than him. JMO. I know other people are very much in love with him, and his traits are very impressive. 

 

Oh hes a project no doubt about it. I think teams don't see a polished WR and instead see a mammoth of a man that has a sub-par skillset. The upside though is if he puts it all together to go along with his size and speed, thats a dangerous weapon for a long time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm just thinking about a real evaluation of him as a player and a prospect, not just his athletic profile. On tape, I don't see a top prospect. If you draft him, you have to see him as a project who needs a lot of work. And there are a lot of highly athletic project players who never turn into good players in the NFL, especially at WR. 

 

I'd take that chance on Day 3. I think there are too many good players that don't require the level of projection that Metcalf does, and I'd rather have them than him. JMO. I know other people are very much in love with him, and his traits are very impressive. 

I would even take terry mclauren over Metkalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballard said the other day that their board is not inline with what the talking heads have. 

 

The 2nd round is where it's at! 

 

LETS GOOOOOO

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

This is a while ago... the analytics have been coming into the league the last several years and the Pats are among the teams using pure expected value assessment to win draft trades for a while now. I cannot pinpoint the exact moment it started but it has been the case at least the last 3 years. 

 

 

Why do people always have to whip out the analytics word?  And how do you win a draft trade?

 

I'm not aware of NE being thought of as having superior drafting prowess.  In fact, they draft marginal players to busts as frequently as anyone else.

 

What they don't do is spend a lot of money on marginal players and instead receive comp picks.

 

They tend to accumulate a lot of draft pick mud to sling on the wall to see if it sticks.  That doesn't sound like a more evolved or intelligent approach to me, even if its based upon analytics. 

 

Using the established draft value chart and precedents, Ballard got under compensated yesterday.  Period.  It could work out for the best because Haskins might break a leg and the skins go 0-16 and the second rounder becomes pick 33.  Or we can use that extra second to trade up to 15 next year and pick the next 10-year left tackle.  Maybe the OT class is better than this years.  Wouldn't be hard.

 

There are reasons for taking less compensation and for making the trade for a pick next year.  That's fine.  But to suggest the trade that was made was good value is more speculative than anything supportable by established standards.

 

And Ballard is not saying it was good value, or that he cares.  He wanted the second round pick.  Its others who are using the terms good value, and it was not.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jawaan Taylor is such an inticing pick, even if he misses a bit of the 2019 calendar. Put him on the right side with Smith at guard and we can physically dominate teams up front. Nobody will want to face a line like that.

Share this post


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

Why do people always have to whip out the analytics word?  And how do you win a draft trade?

 

I'm not aware of NE being thought of as having superior drafting prowess.  In fact, they draft marginal players to busts as frequently as anyone else.

 

What they don't do is spend a lot of money on marginal players and instead receive comp picks.

 

They tend to accumulate a lot of draft pick mud to sling on the wall to see if it sticks.  That doesn't sound like a more evolved or intelligent approach to me, even if its based upon analytics. 

 

Using the established draft value chart, Ballard got under compensated yesterday.  Period.  It could work out for the best because Haskins might break a leg and the skins go 0-16 and the second rounder becomes pick 33.  Or we can use that extra second to trade up to 15 next year and pick the next 10-year left tackle.  Maybe the OT class is better than this years.  Wouldn't be hard.

 

There are reasons for taking less compensation and for making the trade for a pick next year.  That's fine.  But to suggest it was good value is more speculative than anything supportable by established standards.

The accumulation of picks is part of what the advanced analytics on draft picks says is a good strategy. In general teams are not great at picking in the draft. There are high bust rates at every level of the draft so accumulating picks is a value proposition that gives you more bites at the apple... you would have more busts... but you would also have more hits.  

 

I'm not aware of the Pats saying something but they act like they know it. Ballard has said the exact same thing - we don't have illusions that we are much better than anyone else at picking players so the more picks you have the more chances you have to hit on players. This is the exact same sentiment expressed by Howie Roseman a while ago too... All of those teams have acted like it and have been accumulating picks when possible. All of those teams are among the front-runners in using analytics to help their decisionmaking. 

 

This is not about random mud slinging and hoping you hit something. This is about knowing your limitations and the system's limitations and using the available data to increase your chances in the draft.

 

Analytics is not some nebulous idea ... it's specific set of tools and data that help you put value on certain assets and make good decisions based on it. It's not that complicated... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what everyone is complaining about? We now have 3 draft picks tonight at 34, 46, and 59. Also have 2 2nd round picks next season and the Skins will be 8-8 at best IMO. The draft is a crapshoot anyway, especially outside of the top 10 picks. I think the people complaining are just mad because they had to stay up late and then we didn't pick :funny:. Last I looked, didn't we draft Leonard at 36 last season? He ended up being the best defensive player in the whole draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Ballard feels the WR spot is filled with the current roster.   

Both Cain and Fountain were highly praised draft picks.   Along with Funchess, the team could be set.

Share this post


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

But to suggest the trade that was made was good value is more speculative than anything supportable by established standards.

 

So is trying to say it wasn't good value.

 

We'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.

 

I do like that it seems like Ballard continually stockpiles future picks.  He seems to be playing the long game.  Even though a lot of fans want instant gratification.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, stitches said:

yes and it was stupid. This is horrible value. I do it ALWAYS when I'm the side of the team getting the 1st and pretty much never do it if I'm on the side giving up the 1st.

 

Which means you would never do a pick for pick trade for a present second rounder, because the cost is a future first, and that's established. If you don't like the cost, that's fine, but let's not act like the cost isn't established. This like saying you'd never pay a franchise QB $30m/year; well that means you'll never sign a franchise QB. That's your choice, but the cost is established.

 

Quote

This is a while ago... the analytics have been coming into the league the last several years and the Pats are among the teams using pure expected value assessment to win draft trades for a while now. I cannot pinpoint the exact moment it started but it has been the case at least the last 3 years. 

 

Ehh... the Pats have been working draft day trades for over a decade now. They were all over the first round in 2009, 2010, etc. They robbed the Ravens in 2003. They've always had a forward thinking mindset when it comes to the value of draft picks, and I agree that they see things in a different way from the rest of the league. But in the middle of that, in 2010, they held to established precedent and traded a future second for a present third. You're arguing that there's a strict assessment strategy that is right, and others are wrong, and in stating that, you're excluding the precedent upon which these present for future trades are based.

 

Quote

30 is an exaggeration for demonstration purposes. In reality the difference in most of those trades is probably closer to 10-15 picks... but it's still a difference in favor of the team that's getting the future pick. Like we did in the other thread with potential Browns future 1st for 34... If the expected value of the Browns pick is around #20 and we are giving up #34 that's 14 spots difference(if you assume the two drafts are generally of similar strength) and in the WORST case scenario(the browns win the Superbowl), the difference is still 2 slots in favor of the team getting the future pick.  

 

It's an exaggeration that inflates the value of the future pick. You're offsetting the greater value of the present pick with the higher projected slot of the future pick, to compensate for what you're losing in the present year. That projection is why the conversation starts with a higher round pick in this scenario, because it's the only way you can guarantee that the future pick has the potential to make up for the loss of value in the present.

 

Your projection of how good or bad the team you're trading with will be in the future might influence how you value that pick, but you must realize that's a risky proposition. As Dustin said, you don't know what that pick will be. And giving up #34 this year for #32 next year is hardly a win.

 

Quote

Not if you have the job-security to make the future pick. The future pick is every bit as secure for the team as the current one is. It's just one year in the future. And it has better value because the general strength of drafts is usually similar, so you get higher pick... you just get it a year later. 

  

It has nothing to do with job security. If you have job security, you can tank to get a higher pick. But that's not the approach, because the objective is to win games. There are competing priorities at times, but you don't sacrifice winning games for future roster building. 

 

Quote

OF COURSE I WOULD STILL DO IT! This is the whole point. Lets eliminate the 1st because it makes the case on my side even more pronounced because of the extra year. Lets say I could trade 80 in this draft for 2022 second. I absolutely would do it.  This is my point! This is a value proposition. If I had job security for the next 5-10 years, I would do trades like this. Hell I would do 3d for 2035 2nd even if I knew I would be here in 2035 to benefit from that pick. Now you cannot do them ALL the time and with ALL the picks, because you would be left with no steady stream of young players, but if you space out your picks well, it's a no brainer to do a trade or two like that every year... even if it's for 20 years in the future. This is the extreme example and I would still do it, we are talking about 1 year in the future for the most part here. 

 

Yeah, that's absurd. I understand how you're valuing these picks, but you're excluding the value of having players on your roster now. As you said, you need a steady stream of young players, and you have to stack good drafts. You're sacrificing part of your potential for a good draft this year for future draft capital, and draft capital doesn't win games, players do. The whole point of the draft is to add good players! Your value matrix is weighting future draft picks far greater than their worth to your team.

 

This is like the comp picks discussion. The Pats are ahead of everyone here also, but it's not because they value future draft picks as greater assets than current veteran players. It's because they draft and develop well, and know they can't keep everyone, so they let other teams overpay their guys and find value elsewhere. They didn't let Trey Flowers walk because they'd rather have a 2020 third.

 

Auxiliary point: Much like comp picks, the value of the fifth year option is becoming overstated, especially toward the end of the first round. 

 

Quote

 

This is not my argument. For this argument it matters the quality of the picks simply because different positions have different expected value. 

...

I agree, this was not my argument. I was talking more about general evaluation of future picks, not about this specific case... although the specific case helps illustrate the argument.

 

 

Strictly talking about the value of a present year's pick vs a future year's pick, I'm saying the precedent is that the future pick gets devalued by one round. 

 

I get that you don't think that's an accurate representation of the value, but it's established. If a team wants to work from a different set of principles and values picks differently, that's fine. But continually pushing draft capital into the future undermines your ability to build a roster. The point of accumulating draft capital is to draft good players, not just to say 'look at all the draft capital I've accumulated!' 

 

And like I said, your working from a different value matrix just means you'd never trade a future first for a present second, and that's fine. It doesn't mean a future second is just as valuable as a present second.

 

Quote

Even if it's 64, the pure value is still OK to good. IMO teams should have probability distribution for where the Redskins are expected to finish and evaluate future picks this way. If we did the simplest of evaluations and used the early Vegas odds that put the Redskins line at 6 wins, we would get a pick around the low 40s... Which again... would be a huge win by pretty much any value chart available. 

 

I agree that the probability of the WAS 2020 pick is part of the equation, but you have to allow for possibility that the pick winds up being a late second, which has a different value than an early second. If you're basing your value of that pick solely on your projection of their 2019 record, you're potentially overvaluing that pick. 

 

If you played the Vegas odds, you'd have to make an awful lot of these trades to offset the risk.

Share this post


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

 

So is trying to say it wasn't good value.

 

We'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.

 

I do like that it seems like Ballard continually stockpiles future picks.  He seems to be playing the long game.  Even though a lot of fans want instant gratification.

That's fine.  And the idea of having quality ammo next year to use to trade up and get ACs replacement looks good to me.  I'd rather have the second next year than the extra 20 slots this year.  I get that.

 

I think most of us here who are questioning the trade are simply disappointed that he couldn't get an extra 5th this year or even a 4th or 5th next year.  That would have been fairer straight up compensation IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Oh hes a project no doubt about it. I think teams don't see a polished WR and instead see a mammoth of a man that has a sub-par skillset. The upside though is if he puts it all together to go along with his size and speed, thats a dangerous weapon for a long time

 

I personally have moved away from valuing "if" players. Most of them don't hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Myles said:

I wonder if Ballard feels the WR spot is filled with the current roster.   

Both Cain and Fountain were highly praised draft picks.   Along with Funchess, the team could be set.

I have said this along. We could still being Inman back. Next YEARS WR class is better. If we don’t take one by the third rd pick we won’t. We already have enough late rd WR to develop.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

So is trying to say it wasn't good value.

 

We'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.

 

I do like that it seems like Ballard continually stockpiles future picks.  He seems to be playing the long game.  Even though a lot of fans want instant gratification.

I like it too, at first I wasn't happy that we traded the 26 to move down 20 spots. The more I thought about it though, I realized we have 3 picks tonight at 34, 46, and 59 + gained an extra 2nd round pick next season. Like I posted above, outside of the top 10 the draft is a crapshoot anyway and we got Leonard at 36 last season as an excellent example. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Superman said:

 

I personally have moved away from valuing "if" players. Most of them don't hit.

 

Busts happen in every round even with so called "can't miss" prospects. 

Share this post


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

 

Which means you would never do a pick for pick trade for a present second rounder, because the cost is a future first, and that's established. If you don't like the cost, that's fine, but let's not act like the cost isn't established. This like saying you'd never pay a franchise QB $30m/year; well that means you'll never sign a franchise QB. That's your choice, but the cost is established.

 

 

Ehh... the Pats have been working draft day trades for over a decade now. They were all over the first round in 2009, 2010, etc. They robbed the Ravens in 2003. They've always had a forward thinking mindset when it comes to the value of draft picks, and I agree that they see things in a different way from the rest of the league. But in the middle of that, in 2010, they held to established precedent and traded a future second for a present third. You're arguing that there's a strict assessment strategy that is right, and others are wrong, and in stating that, you're excluding the precedent upon which these present for future trades are based.

 

 

It's an exaggeration that inflates the value of the future pick. You're offsetting the greater value of the present pick with the higher projected slot of the future pick, to compensate for what you're losing in the present year. That projection is why the conversation starts with a higher round pick in this scenario, because it's the only way you can guarantee that the future pick has the potential to make up for the loss of value in the present.

 

Your projection of how good or bad the team you're trading with will be in the future might influence how you value that pick, but you must realize that's a risky proposition. As Dustin said, you don't know what that pick will be. And giving up #34 this year for #32 next year is hardly a win.

 

  

It has nothing to do with job security. If you have job security, you can tank to get a higher pick. But that's not the approach, because the objective is to win games. There are competing priorities at times, but you don't sacrifice winning games for future roster building. 

 

 

Yeah, that's absurd. I understand how you're valuing these picks, but you're excluding the value of having players on your roster now. As you said, you need a steady stream of young players, and you have to stack good drafts. You're sacrificing part of your potential for a good draft this year for future draft capital, and draft capital doesn't win games, players do. The whole point of the draft is to add good players! Your value matrix is weighting future draft picks far greater than their worth to your team.

 

This is like the comp picks discussion. The Pats are ahead of everyone here also, but it's not because they value future draft picks as greater assets than current veteran players. It's because they draft and develop well, and know they can't keep everyone, so they let other teams overpay their guys and find value elsewhere. They didn't let Trey Flowers walk because they'd rather have a 2020 third.

 

Auxiliary point: Much like comp picks, the value of the fifth year option is becoming overstated, especially toward the end of the first round. 

 

 

Strictly talking about the value of a present year's pick vs a future year's pick, I'm saying the precedent is that the future pick gets devalued by one round. 

 

I get that you don't think that's an accurate representation of the value, but it's established. If a team wants to work from a different set of principles and values picks differently, that's fine. But continually pushing draft capital into the future undermines your ability to build a roster. The point of accumulating draft capital is to draft good players, not just to say 'look at all the draft capital I've accumulated!' 

 

And like I said, your working from a different value matrix just means you'd never trade a future first for a present second, and that's fine. It doesn't mean a future second is just as valuable as a present second.

 

 

I agree that the probability of the WAS 2020 pick is part of the equation, but you have to allow for possibility that the pick winds up being a late second, which has a different value than an early second. If you're basing your value of that pick solely on your projection of their 2019 record, you're potentially overvaluing that pick. 

 

If you played the Vegas odds, you'd have to make an awful lot of these trades to offset the risk.

IF WA has a great season we can always trade up and get rid of that pick. Odds are they won’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Like I posted above outside of the top 10 the draft is a crapshoot anyway

 

Yeah hopefully we're always drafting at the end of the 1st round from now on, in which case a move like this every year provides Ballard more "darts" in this 2nd-tier range where the talent is all fairly equal, and he can pick up extra guys of his preferred "flavor" at the same talent level as what he would have gotten in the bottom of the 1st anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chloe6124 said:

IF WA has a great season we can always trade up and get rid of that pick. Odds are they won’t. 

I can't see the Skins being above .500. I would put my money on them being 8-8 or worse.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Superman said:

...

Lets just agree to disagree because I feel like we are running in circles around eachother here. Lets just say if I were a GM with 20 years contract(job security) I would value 2019 as much as I value 2025 or 2030 or 2035... (with some allowance for change of strategy when in full WIN NOW mode). You disagree on that and that's OK.

 

Let just move onto today's picks... so... who is your pick at 34? Lets say everyone is available? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whew!  I'm glad I went to bed after the draft and missed 8 pages of outrage delivered in an hour and a half.  Me and Lee Corso got a good night's sleep.  (separately, of course)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Coltsman1788 said:

Smart man!  Lol. 

 

I must say though...watching this draft as it unfolded with another Colts fan buddy of mine and reacting together to the picks of the other teams and discussing what we thought Ballard was going to do as a result was it’s own kind of weird fun.   Lol.  

Yea I considered  watching and chatting but decided to wait til today. Ballard  will  prob trade back one more time at 34. Seems like the type of move he'd  make.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ahahahahahahahahahaha just popped in to check the chaos after trading the 1st round pick, and i see the cry babys and arm chair gms are out in full force. This place is actually getting worse as the years go by.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's going to trade down again at some point in the 2nd rd with one of those picks.  Now that I see his game plan coming together.  I'm almost certain of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, azguy7 said:

Could see the colts going for jalen jelks of oregon with one of their 2nd or 3rd round picks.  A quality edge.   

 

Jelks definitely looks like a prototypical Ballard EDGE prospect, but taking him in the 2nd or 3rd would be a bit of a reach IMO.

Share this post


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

He's going to trade down again at some point in the 2nd rd with one of those picks.  Now that I see his game plan coming together.  I'm almost certain of it.

Do you think he trades down for future pick again or for current year pick? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stitches said:

Do you think he trades down for future pick again or for current year pick? 

Current year or a little bit of both.

  • Like 1

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.

×
×
  • Create New...