Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts trade out of first round


CR91

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 531
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

Their picking at 34 had nothing to do with the value they got for the trade they made.  They are not connected.  Do you think Ballard wanted more out of it then backed off because he had # 34?

 

What I mean is Ballard had the 34th pick in his pocket so he could make a move like this. Do you really see us moving down 20 spots and only getting a future 2nd?

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

Didn't sign anyone you say?

 

Vinatieri 

Glowinski

Funchess

 

Desir 

Geathers

Houston

Hunt

Kindred

 

Which means that every starting position is filled from last years squad AND Funchess is better than Clark and Houston is better (currently) than either Lewis or Turay.

 

I would say that the youngest roster (minus Vinatieri) in the NFL is greatly improved by being a year older, continuity and adding better starters at the two spots that desperately needed them.

 

Relax....

Relax no, except for Houston, I'm not impressed.

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

This is nonesese. Yes, it could be 64.... or it could be 33!!! This is not how you make evaluations. You have some probability distribution and you get an expected value out of it. Especially with the Redskins probably starting a rookie QB, this trade is more likely to give us a pick closer to 33 than to 64. 

 

Also, find me a single trade chart that gives us worse value than what the Redskins got. You won't find one. Even the most outdated ones that overvalue higher picks and undervalue number of picks return worse value. Even if you take the worst chart for my argument(Jimmy Johnson's chart) AND assume worst case scenario(we get 64), we still come ahead 10 points, which is equivalent of a 6th round pick... This is WORST case scenario on the WORST chart for my argument. 

 

Any trade chart when you devalue the future pick by half

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, the Rams just traded out w the Falcons and for moving down 14 spots they got a 3rd this year and had to give a 6th back

 

And the Seahawks got a 4th and 5th for moving down 7 spots.

 

I like the Colts move even more w the Redskins future 2 when you see what it cost others to move up here.

 

The Colts did well to get what they got.

 

 

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

 

Any trade chart when you devalue the future pick by half

Why would you devalue the future pick BY HALF? wth? This makes no sense. I devalued it the most it could be devalued - assumed it's the WORST possible pick... and it still gives us great value. 

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

By the way, the Rams just traded out w the Falcons and for moving down 14 spots they got a 3rd this year and had to give a 6th back

 

I like the Colts move even more w the Redskins future 2.

 

 

But I wanted a player tonight and I didn’t get what I wanted so it must be dumb!

 

please note the sarcasm in my post. 

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

Why would you devalue the future pick BY HALF? wth? This makes no sense. I devalued it the most it could be devalued - assumed it's the WORST possible pick... and it still gives us great value. 

 

https://www.patspulpit.com/2017/4/23/15398184/2017-nfl-draft-creating-a-brand-new-nfl-draft-value-trade-chart

 

"In other words, a team could trade a fourth round pick in 2017 and reasonably expect to receive a 2018 third round pick on the market. A current fifth is worth a future fourth. No one really wants future seventh round picks because they hold almost no value.

This valuation of future picks is a representation of time value of money, which means that a draft pick now is worth more than the same draft pick in a future year."

 

What do I win

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

By the way, the Rams just traded out w the Falcons and for moving down 14 spots they got a 3rd this year and had to give a 6th back

 

And it seems the Falcons are trying to copy the Colts blueprint for protecting their franchise QB.  Two OLinemen in the 1st round.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty simple - if you look at your board and realize you're probably gonna get all 3 players you wanted anyway, you might as well trade down and get a free pick next year.

 

Something about Tillery turned them off.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t be shocked if Ballard trades back again, especially if someone wants to come up and get Lock.  

 

If not almost all the corners are still there, there are also some OTs there, some WRs, and a safety.  The Colts will still get a guy who was close in talent to what they would have gotten at 26 and who knows if one of those guys that Ballard wanted was a corner maybe it’s still the same guy.  

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

 

https://www.patspulpit.com/2017/4/23/15398184/2017-nfl-draft-creating-a-brand-new-nfl-draft-value-trade-chart

 

"In other words, a team could trade a fourth round pick in 2017 and reasonably expect to receive a 2018 third round pick on the market. A current fifth is worth a future fourth. No one really wants future seventh round picks because they hold almost no value.

This valuation of future picks is a representation of time value of money, which means that a draft pick now is worth more than the same draft pick in a future year."

 

What do I win

You win nothing. This is the same nonsense that I just debunked. It makes ZERO sense to value future picks more than current ones. Just ASSERTING it doesn't make it so. 

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

Relax no, except for Houston, I'm not impressed.

 

Ballard is not trying to impress you, he is trying to win football games.  And he did a really good job of it this far.

 

I like the value we get here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GoColts8818 said:

Don’t be shocked if Ballard trades back again, especially if someone wants to come up and get Lock.  

 

If not almost all the corners are still there, there are also some OTs there, some WRs, and a safety.  The Colts will still get a guy who was close in talent to what they would have gotten at 26 and who knows if one of those guys that Ballard wanted was a corner maybe it’s still the same guy.  

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

A pick this year is always worth more than a pick next year.  So the trade is really the equivalent of picking up a third this year for moving down from 26 to 46. 

 

Pick 26 is worth 700 points and pick 46 is worth 440 points.  So we need 260 points to break even.  260 points is pick 66 this year.

 

So instead of getting pick 66 this year (second pick of the third round), we'll probably get around a mid second round pick next year.

 

Use your judgment to determine if its a good trade.

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

 

https://www.patspulpit.com/2017/4/23/15398184/2017-nfl-draft-creating-a-brand-new-nfl-draft-value-trade-chart

 

"In other words, a team could trade a fourth round pick in 2017 and reasonably expect to receive a 2018 third round pick on the market. A current fifth is worth a future fourth. No one really wants future seventh round picks because they hold almost no value.

This valuation of future picks is a representation of time value of money, which means that a draft pick now is worth more than the same draft pick in a future year."

 

What do I win

The Pats pulpit is your reference?  You aren’t even pretending to be a Colts fan. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:

People complaining before we even draft anyone. Ballard did not like Tillery or sweat. Give it up.

Or he did but also liked others still there too, normally if there are multiple guys like about the same you look to move back to let others make the choice for you.  

 

Having the 34th pick made it easier to make this deal because if you had multiple guys liked at 26 having a pick 8 picks later means you are still probably going to get a guy you liked and you get to add more players later.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:

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

He could move down in the second round depending on what his board looks like.  I doubt he will too but I wouldn’t rule it out, especially if a team wants to come up and get a guy like a Lock.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.  $100 dollars today is worth more than $100 next year.  It the time value of money and everything we know revolves around that principal.

 

Essentially, we got the equivalent of a third round pick this year for moving down from 26 to 46.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 

https://www.patspulpit.com/2017/4/23/15398184/2017-nfl-draft-creating-a-brand-new-nfl-draft-value-trade-chart

 

"In other words, a team could trade a fourth round pick in 2017 and reasonably expect to receive a 2018 third round pick on the market. A current fifth is worth a future fourth. No one really wants future seventh round picks because they hold almost no value.

This valuation of future picks is a representation of time value of money, which means that a draft pick now is worth more than the same draft pick in a future year."

 

What do I win

I dont see that as a devaluation, rather more of an "interest" value.  Its a bird-in-hand type scenario.

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

 

I quoted you verbatim.

 

You cut up my comment to fit your logic. I said the colts felt comfortable doing this because they still have 34. If that wasnt the case, I have a hard time justifying them moving down 20 spots for just a future second

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballard is very obviously choosy with who he wants. He wanted hollywood brown but the ravens picked him just before we could scoop him up. (What a waste of talent and work ethic on a terrible qb) then he was gonna pick sweat but the redskins made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Maybe the godfather has a weakness for stockpiling value picks when he has a good player in front of him like sweat. Or maybe there's one or 2 more darius lleonardshe has his eyes on in the 2nd. Either way he's earned my trust and i'm on the edge of my seat waiting to see what this genius has in mind. 

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

You win nothing. This is the same nonsense that I just debunked. It makes ZERO sense to value future picks more than current ones. Just ASSERTING it doesn't make it so. 

 

Okay

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Colts wearing their color rush 
    • Maybe Nelson plays LT this week and balls out, then the problem is resolved, LOL.    IDK, depends on how the draft goes towards filling the pricey players at LT, DE, WR, and QB.  We might have to let one of Nelson or Leonard go.  We might get a 3rd round comp pick for Nelson's contract, 4th for Leonard's contract, and we could find a ILB in that round.  Don't have to make that decision for a while, and if Ballard can hit on those pricey position draft picks, we could pay both while the youngsters are playing on their rookie deals.   No, I doubt BB would pay either....and would take the comp picks.  But I don't think he is a great drafter given the number of picks he has had over the years.
    • I predict I will be at the texans @ colts game on Dec. 20th. 
    • he has one year left and a low salary, he probably will play that out and they make a decision after next season.  doubt he gets cut before then, he seems to have a strong work ethic and the potential is there to be a good edge rusher 
    • Yeah, Ballard & Reich should end Philip’s impressive consecutive games streak and sit him for a game, but not in favor of the rookie QB – I think I’ve seen this movie before, 3 seasons ago when Giants GM Jerry Reese & HC Ben McAdoo thought it would be a good idea to sit Eli Manning and end his 210 game streak, the longest in the NFL at the time but not to play their rookie 3rd round draft pick QB Davis Webb, but to start Geno Smith instead. They lost anyway, and Reese & McAdoo were immediately fired, and Eli started the next game and led the G-men to 1 more win that year.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...