Colts trade out of first round

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

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

 

No such thing, which is why I'm even more wary of risky prospects like Metcalf.

 

16 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

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

 

My point is that if they have a great season, the actual value of that pick winds up being considerably less than the projected value of that pick.

[NewColtsFan]

6 hours ago, Myles said:

Ballard has earned my trust, but I really didn't like this move.   It seems we should have been able to get more.  Maybe an additional 3rd round pick.   I was looking forward to getting 2 of the top 34 players in this draft.   

 

From the trade value points chart,  the Colts are going to get more points than we gave up.

 

The only question is...     how much more?   

 

We get more with a late-2nd,  much more with a mid-round,  and a big win if we get a top-40 pick.

[CR91]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No such thing, which is why I'm even more wary of risky prospects like Metcalf.

 

Just have to wait and see. For all we know, Metcalf isn't even on our board.

[King Colt]

I believe I would not want to play poker with Ballard.

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, stitches 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.

 

One last thing, to boil down what I think our disagreement is: I think the value of future picks needs to be offset by the value of the player that would be on your roster in the present season. That's really the only thing we're missing on.

 

Quote

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

 

No trade? I think it's Jawaan Taylor. I'd be happy with any of about six guys.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

My point is that if they have a great season, the actual value of that pick winds up being considerably less than the projected value of that pick.

 

True, but it's still an extra "dart" for Ballard in that second-tier group of players.

 

Even if the WAS pick is 15+ spots lower than predicted, the talent level between those two spots will probably be comparable, and Ballard will probably still be able to get an extra good player of his favorite "flavor".

 

Hopefully Ballard hits a bullseye with his extra dart and the slight difference in value is a moot point.

[Mitch Connors]

26 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

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. 

 

Doesn't referencing Leonard actually not support the decision to trade down/out? The Colts could have certainly turned the Leonard draft pick into another 2nd and 3rd round last year too but they chose Leonard instead. Id rather have Leonard than another 2nd round pick this year. As obvious as that is to say (given hindsight) it seems so many are stuck on passing on something you know today for something you know dramatically less about next year. As equally as silly - if we passed on Leonard to trade the pick - he wouldnt be on the team.

[GwinnettColt]

3 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

 

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

 

At face-value, Ballard could seem frustrating to fans as Polian did, sometimes.  When you analyze what he's doing, I think he's brilliant. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Leonard had a grade that they felt was worthy of that pick. Chances are the colts have players graded the same in the second as they had sweat and tilkary. They wouldn’t of passed on Tillery otherwise. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

8 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

Doesn't referencing Leonard actually not support the decision to trade down/out? The Colts could have certainly turned the Leonard draft pick into another 2nd and 3rd round last year too but they chose Leonard instead. Id rather have Leonard than another 2nd round pick this year. As obvious as that is to say (given hindsight) it seems so many are stuck on passing on something you know today for something you know dramatically less about next year. As equally as silly - if we passed on Leonard to trade the pick - he wouldnt be on the team.

What I am saying is, players like Leonard (or similar to Leonard that pan out) can be found in Round 2. To me drafting 26th or 34th isn't much of a difference to me. People in here that are diehard Draft guys can come up with point value or whatever but I am ok with what Ballard did last night. We have 3 picks tonight at 34, 46, and 59 and now have an extra 2nd round pick next season. I like the looks of that.

[krunk]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

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

I think he's filling in depth holes with quality young players who don't necessarily have to start from day one. He'll pull a couple starters out of this draft but a lot of it will be for the purposes of improving our depth.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

 

 

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. 

 

 

Stiches....   I hope you know by now how much I like you.    How much I respect you.   And I know you're using some exaggeration and hyperbole to make a point.   But you completely jumped the shark in this paragraph and I think you've badly hurt your argument.

 

Trading a 3 for a future 2 is fine.  But almost always the future higher pick is next year.

 

So, when you write you'd trade pick 70 for a 2022 second round pick, that you would absolutely do it, I'm here to respectfully tell you.     No you wouldn't.   Because if you did,  you'd be fired by your owner by the end of business that day.    And then you went even further by saying you'd do the deal if the 2nd round pick was in year 2035.    Come on!   Which GM is lasting that long?   Your owner could be dead by then.    You couldn't sell this to anyone.    Not to the owner,  your fellow front office execs,  your head coach or players.     You'd never, EVER consider this deal,  it's beyond silly and ridiculous.  

 

Doing a deal one year ahead is fine.   3-4 years ahead is DOA,  Dead On Arrival.    You can't sell it.   Because in that length of time,  you have no idea how good that team you traded with might be?   Maybe by then,  the team will be in the divisional championship game.    So,  pick 70 this year might end up getting you pick 61 in 3-4 years.     Where's the benefit in that?

 

I'm somewhat disappointed that we didn't get to see Ballard pick a player last night.   I'm as curious as anyone else who he likes.    We passed on Abrams and McGary (and Sweat!) and others that I like...    I wanted to unwrap a present for Christmas!    And it didn't happen.   But if Ballard thinks today's presents are roughly the same as what we would have taken last night at 26,  then I'm good with it.    And a year from now,  when we have TWO 2nd round picks,  and the one we acquired is hopefully a top-40,  then I'm going to be really, seriously happy!    So, I like the deal and can defend the deal without going to the lengths that you did.    

 

That paragraph should've NEVER been written.

[stitches]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

One last thing, to boil down what I think our disagreement is: I think the value of future picks needs to be offset by the value of the player that would be on your roster in the present season. That's really the only thing we're missing on.

 

And I think that value of the player you are missing in the current season(2019 to 2023) is off-set by the value of the player that will be on your roster in the future season(2020 to 2024 or  2025 to 2029... etc... it's the same number of seasons you get value for). It all boils down to how you value the present season vs future seasons. 

 

Quote

No trade? I think it's Jawaan Taylor. I'd be happy with any of about six guys.

Yeah... same here. I have no idea what Jawaan Taylor's injury is though... 

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

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.   

 

You're right. Either you edited your post or i quoted the wrong one. 

 

In terms of the chart, which I was stuck on, it's getting more apparent that it's outdated because many are saying we pretty well maximized value for that type of trade, and the others trading out of the first would indicate that as well. 

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Stiches....   I hope you know by now how much I like you.    How much I respect you.   And I know you're using some exaggeration and hyperbole to make a point.   But you completely jumped the shark in this paragraph and I think you've badly hurt your argument.

 

Trading a 3 for a future 2 is fine.  But almost always the future higher pick is next year.

 

So, when you write you'd trade pick 70 for a 2022 second round pick, that you would absolutely do it, I'm here to respectfully tell you.     No you wouldn't.   Because if you did,  you'd be fired by your owner by the end of business that day.    And then you went even further by saying you'd do the deal if the 2nd round pick was in year 2035.    Come on!   Which GM is lasting that long?   Your owner could be dead by then.    You couldn't sell this to anyone.    Not to the owner,  your fellow front office execs,  your head coach or players.     You'd never, EVER consider this deal,  it's beyond silly and ridiculous.  

 

Doing a deal one year ahead is fine.   3-4 years ahead is DOA,  Dead On Arrival.    You can't sell it.   Because in that length of time,  you have no idea how good that team you traded with might be?   Maybe by then,  the team will be in the divisional championship game.    So,  pick 70 this year might end up getting you pick 61 in 3-4 years.     Where's the benefit in that?

 

I'm somewhat disappointed that we didn't get to see Ballard pick a player last night.   I'm as curious as anyone else who he likes.    We passed on Abrams and McGary (and Sweat!) and others that I like...    I wanted to unwrap a present for Christmas!    And it didn't happen.   But if Ballard thinks today's presents are roughly the same as what we would have taken last night at 26,  then I'm good with it.    And a year from now,  when we have TWO 2nd round picks,  and the one we acquired is hopefully a top-40,  then I'm going to be really, seriously happy!    So, I like the deal and can defend the deal without going to the lengths that you did.    

 

That paragraph should've NEVER been written.

I did say I exaggerated to make the point(noone would actually make that trade, because it's not necessary... 1 or 2 years in the future is enough), but IF you have the job security... PURELY VALUE-wise... ignore all job-security considerations... it's a good decision. I'm good with this paragraph and I stand behind it. It's a thought exercise more than a real scenario that will ever come up. I think I did put enough 'job security' qualifications and caveats to feel good about that paragraph. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

15 minutes ago, GwinnettColt said:

I think he's brilliant.

 

I think that's the first time I've seen someone post that non-sarcastically. 

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yeah... same here. I have no idea what Jawaan Taylor's injury is though... 

 

I missed the late intrigue with his injury. I assumed he was cleared, but I guess not.

 

Maybe AJ Brown then...

[NewColtsFan]

11 hours ago, Flash7 said:

The likelihood of players selected #15 through #70 grading out closely is highly unlikely.

 

It’s likely that 5 years from now we will be able to identify busts, average players, pro bowlers and all pros from within that range from this year’s draft.

 

If Ballad has them all graded similarly, it’s still the same problem.

 

I think Ballard is saying from Picks 15 to 70,  you're getting a 2nd round player.   A 55 player second round.    This has happened before.     Fewer first round talents,  many more 2nd round players.

 

But it might not surprise that some lower level 2's perform better than some higher level 2's...  their grades are not far off.

 

[Superman]

20 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

True, but it's still an extra "dart" for Ballard in that second-tier group of players.

 

Even if the WAS pick is 15+ spots lower than predicted, the talent level between those two spots will probably be comparable, and Ballard will probably still be able to get an extra good player of his favorite "flavor".

 

Hopefully Ballard hits a bullseye with his extra dart and the slight difference in value is a moot point.

 

Yeah, once we start digging in on value and strategy and whatnot, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that the draft is about adding players. The value is a secondary consideration.

[stitches]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I missed the late intrigue with his injury. I assumed he was cleared, but I guess not.

 

Maybe AJ Brown then...

The thing is... if his injury is just short-term issue and not long-term concern... we don't really need him to play right away and even more - even if he was healthy he might still not play to start the season. That's the reason I think I would be still good with Taylor unless his injury is long-term concern. 

[NewColtsFan]

6 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?

 

Why do you think we passed on him?

 

We passed on him, as did the other 25 teams because of his medical issue.    Our doctors did not clear him.    Nor did they on the other teams.     Washington's team doctors clearly did clear him.   But most teams didn't.  

 

That's why Sweat, a top-12 player,  fell to pick 26.

 

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

You're right. Either you edited your post or i quoted the wrong one. 

 

In terms of the chart, which I was stuck on, it's getting more apparent that it's outdated because many are saying we pretty well maximized value for that type of trade, and the others trading out of the first would indicate that as well. 

Or maybe many are just talking out of their * and don't even know the chart exists.  

 

If they are using a different metric to value these trades, have they shared it publicly?

[DougDew]

57 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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

Agreed.  I'd put Sweat into that bucket.

[chad72]

I think we will all calm down once a pick is made.  

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Why do you think we passed on him?

 

We passed on him, as did the other 25 teams because of his medical issue.    Our doctors did not clear him.    Nor did they on the other teams.     Washington's team doctors clearly did clear him.   But most teams didn't.  

 

That's why Sweat, a top-12 player,  fell to pick 26.

 

Don't quote me on this but I think I read somewhere that Oakland and the Redskins use the same group of doctors for their medicals and Oakland were the team to draft Hurst last year.

[csmopar]

6 hours ago, DougDew said:

I think that's true also.  He also said some of his 8 guys were still on the board.  So there must have been a dropoff from that group.

 

He's also said that he is happy with our dline group.  Some probably don't understand that comment as well.

 

But you also have to think of it from the WASH perspective.  I'm selling something they apparently want.  They called.  And EDGE players are a premium position, with some saying Sweat fell due to a misdiagnosis.  So considering its Sweat, we have given up the, say, 18th BPA in the draft, or the equivalent of 28 slots.  I'm thinking if a team is calling me to get that player, my price is higher than what Ballard got.

I agree with the last paragraph 100 percent.

[NewColtsFan]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

Don't quote me on this but I think I read somewhere that Oakland and the Redskins use the same group of doctors for their medicals and Oakland were the team to draft Hurst last year.

 

Wow!    That's some seriously good 411!     Nice find!     (If true...)

 

[chad72]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Agreed.  I'd put Sweat into that bucket.

 

Then, I'd get Dalton Risner who played really well vs Sweat 1-on-1, that is the kind of guy I want for a potential future starter. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

2 minutes ago, chad72 said:

I think we will all calm down once a pick is made.  

 

Or it gets even worse.  You never know with this forum. 

 

I'm already picturing the posts I know we'll see from a few members I have in mind...

 

"Ballard traded down for THAT guy?!?  When he could have had Sweat/Tillery/Abram?!?    Brilliant Ballard..."

[chad72]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

Don't quote me on this but I think I read somewhere that Oakland and the Redskins use the same group of doctors for their medicals and Oakland were the team to draft Hurst last year.

 

So the Raiders and Redskins are used to drafting players with questionable hearts, is what you are saying!!! j/k 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Just now, chad72 said:

 

So the Raiders and Redskins are used to drafting players with questionable hearts, is what you are saying!!! j/k 

 

Well, you have to compromise somewhere, and who needs a heart! 

[stitches]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Wow!    That's some seriously good 411!     Nice find!     (If true...)

 

The problem is that I listen to like 10 different NFL podcasts around this time of year and consume draft content like crazy so I hear and read lots of stuff but I have hard time remembering where I heard/read the specific bits and pieces. 

[stitches]

5 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

So the Raiders and Redskins are used to drafting players with questionable hearts, is what you are saying!!! j/k 

They are what some people call... heartbreakers...

 

(especially for Colts fans who wanted both Sweat and Hurst)

 

OK, I'm gonna let myself out 

[masnerj]

Guys we need to stop over-thinking this. I understand where people are coming from but at the end of the day, the draft trade we made last night seems to be a good one. And all indications seem to point towards another trade down made with our #34 tonight. 

 

It has been very well documented by NUMEROUS sources (Ballard himself, other GMs, scouts, NFL draft media, etc) that this year's draft is top heavy with the top 15 players or so. After that, 20-70 is roughly around the same in terms of value. Ballard even went as far as saying that the picks seen after the top 15-20 will start to become more and more varied based on teams' flavor and scheme preference. With the above being true, it makes sense that Ballard traded from 26 to 46 because no-one was left on the board that he loved enough to spend a 1st round pick on. Yes, Sweat was still there but Ballard KNEW THAT TOO AND TRADED DOWN ANYWAYS. That means that Ballard isn't as high on Sweat (for whatever reason, it doesn't really matter as we will never know) as other teams are. In his post-day 1 conference, he was asked about Sweat and he decided to not go into details and simply said a generic "he is a talented player" to end the topic. That probably means that something, maybe his medical check up or his interviews or his character, made him someone that the Colts weren't interested in. Maybe he wasn't (in fact its probable) even on our draft board! 

 

And just take a look at the current make-up of our team. We don't necessarily have any CRAZY weaknesses but we do lack major depth in many positions. Ballard loves his offensive and defensive lineman but in this draft, FIFTEEN went in the first 25. That probably meant that all of Ballard's favorites were already taken and he wasn't as into Tillery as many on this forum seem to be (maybe a character reason too!). But you know what helps with depth? Going BPA with picks in rounds 2-4. 

 

Ballard is sticking with his guns and his talent evaluation and making decisions according to that. If he didn't feel that any of the prospects left at that time were worth that pick, I trust the guy because I actually agree with him. Guys like Tillery, Abram, etc are NOT perfect 1st round prospects and probably wouldn't be first round picks in next year or last year's draft (unless you are the Seahawks I guess who make a crazy 1st round pick basically every year). 

 

Furthermore, I can't wait for this forum and the reddit sub to blow up when the following happens:
1) He trades from 34 down 5-10 spots for additional mid-round picks this year and/or picks next year.

2) Atleast 2 picks today will be folks that are not talked about a lot by the NFL media and will be players that not everyone knows (i.e. what happened last year). My money is on Ben Banogu from TCU being one of those players if he is on the board at 46. 

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, chad72 said:

I think we will all calm down once a pick is made.  

Nah, it'll either be a reach, the wrong guy, or the wrong position.......

[ColtStrong2013]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, once we start digging in on value and strategy and whatnot, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that the draft is about adding players. The value is a secondary consideration.

 

Exactly... And we focus too often on the chart in this regard. We are adding an extra second round pick, when we are possibly and ideally getting the same player at 34 we were getting at 26. That's invaluable on a draft chart, in my opinion. I'm sure Ballard feels the same. We moved down 20 spots, added a 2020 second and had the 2nd pick of the draft as luxury from a similar move done last year. The value chart for today's 2nd pick says it's twice as high as everyone was saying it was last year. It gives us flexibility in this draft to maneuver without fear of missing something. That too is invaluable. 

[NewColtsFan]

17 minutes ago, stitches said:

I did say I exaggerated to make the point(noone would actually make that trade, because it's not necessary... 1 or 2 years in the future is enough), but IF you have the job security... PURELY VALUE-wise... ignore all job-security considerations... it's a good decision. I'm good with this paragraph and I stand behind it. It's a thought exercise more than a real scenario that will ever come up. I think I did put enough 'job security' qualifications and caveats to feel good about that paragraph. 

 

Throw out the job security.    You'd lose everyone in "the building".    I'm talking support and everyone being on the same page.

 

The Head Coach is thinking my GM is not getting ME the talent I need to win.   And when I don't win enough,  he's going to fire me.    The rest of the coaches will be * too.   Along with all the scouts.    You've poisoned all your business relationships.

 

We both know the NFL is a WIN-NOW type of league.   Next year is promised to no one.    Irsay derves HUGE credit for letting Ballard carry out his vision.   I'm sure the success of the 18 draft and the sucess we had on the field makes supporting Ballard easier.   But you know Irsay wants to win NOW.    And yet, he's letting Ballard build methodically. 

 

I agree that, when you think it's to your benefit trading a lesser pick for a future higher pick is a good idea.    Belichick does that.    Other top GM's do that.    Bill Walsh used to do that with SF.   So did Jimmy Johnson with Dallas.   It works.   

 

But only up to a point....   and at some point, you're getting diminishing returns....

 

Good discussion...   perhaps we agree more than we realize....

 

[NewColtsFan]

7 minutes ago, stitches said:

The problem is that I listen to like 10 different NFL podcasts around this time of year and consume draft content like crazy so I hear and read lots of stuff but I have hard time remembering where I heard/read the specific bits and pieces. 

 

Yup.    Me too.     But not with podcasts....   with articles I can read.

 

And then I have to torture my brain to try and remember where I read that info?  

 

Doing that with a 62 year old brain is not as easy as I'd like it to be....

 

[Rackeen305]

51 minutes ago, King Colt said:

I believe I would not want to play poker with Ballard.

lol I've heard he's banned in Vegas and New Jersey.

[stitches]