Jump to content
CR91

Colts trade out of first round

Recommended Posts

Could we possibly trade back into the first from 34? The benefit being the 5th year option, obviously. Possibility. Don't go to bed yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m just mad I stayed up watching waiting for the pick. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

All of the 8 he had his eye on were probably gone.

That or they all still were and he knew he could still get one at 34

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Wrong. We still have pick 34. Probably saw one of the 8-9 guys we wanted would still be available due to the run on bizarro picks early on. Might as well trade back and get an extra second. 

Saw Schultz (local radio guy) say that Ballard said that he viewed guys 15 through 70 as about the same value in this draft.  Not shocking to see this when you read that.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hints all week from Ballard that this was possible. Biggest one - little difference between 11 and 70 in his view.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CR91 said:

 

And how did you come up with that logic? Do you really see the redskins making the playoffs or winning more then 8 games?

 

Exactly. I smell another top 3 second round pick next year. Might not be as high of value right now at this moment... but next year, SWEET. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WarGhost21 said:

That or they all still were and he knew he could still get one at 34

Ahhhh, maybe so. Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WarGhost21 said:

That or they all still were and he knew he could still get one at 34

And MAYBE another with the Redskins pick, if not it will be a guy close in value.  So they pretty much got two guys who are going to be of similar talent as to what they would have gotten and most likely another high second round pick next year.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, boo2202 said:

Apparently ballard sees 2nd round value next year

 

I mean, there is always 2nd round value. Next year will be no different. And he's gambling on the Redskins continuing to suck (not too dumb right?). Top 5 pick in the 2nd round next year. Book it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Could we possibly trade back into the first from 34? The benefit being the 5th year option, obviously. Possibility. Don't go to bed yet. 

 

You can go to bed.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


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

Ballard is really pissing me off.

See: 2018 NFL Draft

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  I can live with the choices Ballard makes.  He's earned that trust in my eyes.

HOWEVER..... the guy could have tipped us Colt fans off a little.

I totally wasted 2 1/2 hours of my life and i'm considering sending him a bill.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CR91 said:

 

And how did you come up with that logic? Do you really see the redskins making the playoffs or winning more then 8 games?

 

I didnt make it up. Future picks are devalued a full round according to the draft chart or the value is cut in half. But w/e it's not end of the world there's still gonna be good players at 34

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just going to put this out there: From multiple sources and most everyone I talk to, the 2020 draft class is going to be one of the most stacked classes in years. Add a 2nd in there? Yes please!!!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Drop 20 spots back for next year's 2nd rounder? Lmao, that's not good.

 

Seems like a panic move after everyone they like went off the board.

That Skins 2 is gonna be pretty close to a 1 next year... lol

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

  I can live with the choices Ballard makes.  He's earned that trust in my eyes.

HOWEVER..... the guy could have tipped us Colt fans off a little.

I totally wasted 2 1/2 hours of my life and i'm considering sending him a bill.

Lol agreed brother. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We traded a first for 2 second rounders...and one of them is next year. That is ridiculous to me. I can see if it was a 2020 first and this years 2nd but it's not. 

Share this post


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

 

I didnt make it up. Future picks are devalued a full round according to the draft chart or the value is cut in half. But w/e it's not end of the world there's still gonna be good players at 34

 

even if thats the case, the redskins are playing with a rookie QB with no weapons and a subpar defense. I can't see them having much success this year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like what he did. Again next year we’ll be going into it again with 2 second round picks. This year was deep with talent. We have a chance to get 3 Top 50 players in this years draft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem is we didn’t really gain any picks this year. At least work a 4th out of them.

Share this post


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

 

And how did you come up with that logic? Do you really see the redskins making the playoffs or winning more then 8 games?

 

Common sense. A draft pick now is more valuable than a future pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a few ppl mentioned, that Skins future 2nd is going to be a premium pick.

 

If they start Haskins all year, the kid is going to take his lumps and they will not finish the year very high. And if Haskins doesn't start right away it's Keenum or Colt McCoy.

 

That future 2nd is going to be a top-10ish pick in the second round next year. We will surely enjoy it then.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, boo2202 said:

My problem is we didn’t really gain any picks this year. At least work a 4th out of them.

Exactly what did we gain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CR91 said:

 

even if thats the case, the redskins are playing with a rookie QB with no weapons and a subpar defense. I can't see them having much success this year

 

Or they can make the playoffs and all of a sudden the picks in high 50s or 60s. This is the NFL man things change fast. 

 

Probably should have gotten a 4th back with this

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We get their 46th pick tomorrow. We have three picks tomorrow. Ballard is so freakin smart.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Common sense. A draft pick now is more valuable than a future pick.

 

...until next year. We can reevaluate then, ok? I'm reevaluating last years trade with the Jets right now, and that future 2nd round is looking great...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Or they can make the playoffs and all of a sudden the picks in high 50s or 60s. This is the NFL man things change fast. 

 

Probably should have gotten a 4th back with this

If that happens we can always trade and move up.

Share this post


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

As a few ppl mentioned, that Skins future 2nd is going to be a premium pick.

 

If they start Haskins all year, the kid is going to take his lumps and they will not finish the year very high. And if Haskins doesn't start right away it's Keenum or Colt McCoy.

 

That future 2nd is going to be a top-10ish pick in the second round next year. We will surely enjoy it then.

I could be wrong here but I think Haskins is going to be a bust.  He seems to believe is own hype a little too much IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

THIS is one of the most outdated views on the draft. There is nothing value-wise that should make a future pick worth less than a current year's pick. 

 

Except for the fact that a future pick could be like 20 spots higher than the ones they have this year? Lol

Share this post


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

We get their 46th pick tomorrow. We have three picks tomorrow. Ballard is so freakin smart.

I mean obviously we got their 46th. Would be odd to just give them our 1st for nothing other than their next earliest pick. I do think we could have gotten slightly more value though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
    • I missed the first couple innings, was keeping track on phone, didn’t realize things got chippy with the benches clearing after the Contreras HR! Seems the Cubs were playing with a little extra edge tonight, I love it!!! 
    • and then NE goes into KC and throws for 350 and Sony runs for 100+ on them. our O, and O game plan just sucked.   i get KC was good, but our O just sucked.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...