Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Archived

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

CR91

Colts trade out of first round

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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 Even the most outdated ones that overvalue higher picks and undervalue number of picks return worse value.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

Share this post


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.

 

 

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


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

 Do you really see us moving down 20 spots and only getting a future 2nd?

 

Yes... That's exactly what I see...

Share this 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMET:

 

 Maybe we should at least wait until the draft is over before we start getting so emotional that we start turning on each other...... WHOOPS......: too late!

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way this is a good trade is if Ballard is correct in his assessment that between 11 and 60, there's not much difference. 

Share this post


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

 

Yes... That's exactly what I see...

 

That is not what I said :sigh:

Share this post


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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gimme CGJ with #34 and anybody after that and I'll be even more happy with the trade than I am now. 

Honestly, there's plenty of other ways it could play out and I'll be ecstatic.

Share this post


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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


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

 

That is not what I said :sigh:

 

I quoted you verbatim.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


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.  

Share this post


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.  

Share this post


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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

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.

Yeah, well I think it sucks.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

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

 

Let's discuss the value of said pick around this time next year, shall we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

 

 

 

I get the impression Ballard wasn’t really in love with anyone there.  This is what you do if you aren’t in love with a guy when it’s your turn to pick.

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys sound like little Ballard mini me's talking 

about "value":D

Share this post


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

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

 

You got me man

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:
 

 

 


Anybody have a guess as to any of those 8 left?

Byron Murphy, Cody Ford, CGJ (bias on my part, but we did also bring him in for a visit)? Possibly a WR thrown in there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Imagine you're Reich and you've spent half of the season calling plays with receivers at different levels -- deep, intermediate, and short, and Brissett repeatedly throws short.   Do you continue calling those plays, or decide to play to Jacoby's strength -- short passing game. Not a quick short passing game, just a short passing game where Jacoby takes forever to decide what he wants to do, and then dumps it off late to the RB.
    • It's a bit misleading. 3 QB's considered 'franchise' level are also on that list.    Along with a couple leaders in the category who are on losing teams so those 20+ yd passes don't seem to be helping their teams win.  
    • Top 6 WRs?   TY for some games, Funchess and Campbell, who are the other three that make up the top 6 on the depth chart?
    • Just like any position, and maybe even more so with the QB position, , you don't take a QB because you NEED one.  In our situation, you take a QB because you think its highly likely he will be better than what we have, and may be something special over the long term.   If you pick because of need, there is a good chance you won't be advancing the talent of the position, so it becomes a wasted pick, IMO.   Is either Love or Hurts likely to be better than JB in the short term, and will either or both be better long term?   If you don't like JB, do you acquire, say, Case Keenum until such time as the right QB becomes available in the draft?   Redskins thought that Haskins was the guy (maybe he will be).  And so did the pundits when they rated him a first rounder.
    • I see us losing 2 of 4 games   We may be drafting 14-16   Tua might be within reach to do a tradets    Its a bit interesting that Tua isnt on the list  ???   He seems like less of a risk than Herbert or Love 
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...