Colts trade out of first round

[LJpalmbeacher2 1,608]

Brilliant!

We only traded down 20 spots and didn't acquire any additional picks for this draft.

Hoping we trade down some more and acquire some Day 3 picks for the 2021 & 2022 Drafts.

[Chloe6124 9,005]

3 minutes ago, Coltsman1788 said:

Whether true or not...I expect that will be the way Ballard tries to spin it.  Who could prove him wrong?  He can tell us anything...we’ll never know the truth. 

We should all know by now Ballard is a straight shooter and doesn’t lie. 

[stitches 7,492]

1 minute ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

Brilliant!

We only traded down 20 spots and didn't acquire any additional picks for this draft.

Hoping we trade down some more and acquire some Day 3 picks for the 2021 & 2022 Drafts.

You would have hated whoever we picked at 26 so... does it really matter? 

[Lucky Colts Fan 5,554]

1 minute ago, Coltsman1788 said:

I expect that will be the way Ballard tries to spin it.

 

He would only have to "spin" it if he didn't think it was a good move, but if he didn't think it was a good move, he wouldn't have done it.

 

If he didn't think it was a good move, he would have just taken the best player on his board.

 

He's already said the talent level from picks 15-70 is about the same, it's just what "flavor" you prefer.  So if you can drop back 20 spots, pick up an extra pick, and still get the "flavor" of player you would have taken at 26, it's a good move.

[Peterk2011 419]

17 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Well Ballard said the opposite in his presser and said some of the 8 are still there.  Could that be a smoke screen?  Sure.  However, he wouldn’t be the first GM to trade back if there were multiple guys still there that he liked knowing he could still get one of them and add an extra pick.

 

Sure. However, if there was only a few of them available I would only trade back a few spots, not 10+. It's too much if I DO want one of them. 

 

But if there was still most of them available, then they must be mostly 2nd rounders. And then, I understand why he traded back.

[Lucky Colts Fan 5,554]

3 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

Brilliant!

 

That's like the third time I've seen that tonight about the move Ballard made.

 

I feel like whenever I see that on this forum, the person doesn't mean it...

 

[Four2itus 4,693]

Hey, why are we all trusting this Ballard guy? It's not like he was Executive of the Year or something.....er......um......nevermind..........

[NewColtsFan 7,375]

4 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

Brilliant!

We only traded down 20 spots and didn't acquire any additional picks for this draft.

Hoping we trade down some more and acquire some Day 3 picks for the 2021 & 2022 Drafts.

Once again....   you think you’re smarter than Chris Ballard.   

 

And despite your phony claims that you like Ballard and trust him,  your true colors are showing....  again.

 

[NorthernBlue 1,242]

I don't like the Value but I trust Ballard so honestly I'll wait till the team is bad to get mad at him.

 

Also I just saw End Game so I'm in a really good movie  

[GoColts8818 4,259]

6 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Sure. However, if there was only a few of them available I would only trade back a few spots, not 10+. It's too much if I DO want one of them. 

 

But if there was still most of them available, then they must be mostly 2nd rounders. And then, I understand why he traded back.

Well he took the offer that was there.  The fact that Ballard had the 34th pick in his back pocket probably played a role in it too,  he knows he can still get one of those guys at 34 in all likely hood.  If he didn’t have the 34th pick maybe he doesn’t make the trade.  

[Lucky Colts Fan 5,554]

7 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

We only traded down 20 spots and didn't acquire any additional picks for this draft.

Hoping we trade down some more and acquire some Day 3 picks for the 2021 & 2022 Drafts.

 

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic and don't approve of the move.

 

I remember you bashing a few of his previous decisions, yet look how last year turned out.

 

Maybe wait to see how it turns out before passing judgement?

[J@son 903]

1 minute ago, Four2itus said:

Hey, why are we all trusting this Ballard guy? It's not like he was Executive of the Year or something.....er......um......nevermind..........

 

Just playing devils advocate... Grigson won the same award. 

[GoColts8818 4,259]

Just now, NorthernBlue said:

I don't like the Value but I trust Ballard so honestly I'll wait till the team is bad to get mad at him.

 

Also I just saw End Game so I'm in a really good movie  

No spoilers!  That’s worse than what people think about this trade.

[Four2itus 4,693]

When Ballard said he had 8 guys that he wanted/rated/whatever......doesn't necessarily mean they were 8 out of the top 25 or thirty. 

Just now, J@son said:

 

Just playing devils advocate... Grigson won the same award. 

True, and he deserved the benefit of the doubt the following year. 

 

Point taken...

[krunk 3,998]

Im down with him trading 34 if we move down only just a couple spots. Maybe we can get an extra pick in Rd 3 and somewhere else.  That would allow us to pick up a RB and a Tackle to go along with everything else. Between Rd 2 and 3 wed take most of our picks in this draft. Plus dont we have two 4th rounders?

[Superman 8,331]

1 hour 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. 

 

? 

 

I get what you're saying about the probability of that future pick and its value. But if some team wants #34 for a future pick, it would cost them a first. To get a third rounder for a future pick, that future pick would need to be a second. This is established in draft/trade history. And that's because future picks get devalued by one round, and there's precedent for this. Part of the reason is you don't know where that future pick will land. It could be #33, it could be #64, and those are very different values. 

 

Now as for how an individual or team values present picks versus future picks, that will vary and is probably situational more than anything. The raw value of a future second is definitely higher than the value of a present third, but the value of having another player on your roster this season is worthy of consideration also. 

 

I'm personally not thrilled with the value on this trade. We went back 20 spots for a future second. I would have liked another pick to even it out a bit, maybe a 5th. 

 

But I'm fine with it. I wanted a trade. Kind of talked myself into Sweat or Tillery, but I've never been over the moon about either guy. Having #34 puts us in range for basically anyone we want, so it's not like we're waiting until #46 to make our first pick. Unless Ballard trades again...

[NewColtsFan 7,375]

5 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Sure. However, if there was only a few of them available I would only trade back a few spots, not 10+. It's too much if I DO want one of them. 

 

But if there was still most of them available, then they must be mostly 2nd rounders. And then, I understand why he traded back.

 

At his ore-draft presser, Ballard said picks from roughly 15-70 (55 picks) are roughly the same.  

 

So he drops 20 spots and gets what is likely to be a high R2 pick next year in the process.   Seems like a shrewd move. 

[stitches 7,492]

Just now, Peterk2011 said:

 

Sure. However, if there was only a few of them available I would only trade back a few spots, not 10+. It's too much if I DO want one of them. 

 

And if there's still most of them available, then they must be mostly 2nd rounders, and then, I understand why he traded back.

The thing I come back to Ballard's pre-draft presser. He said between about 15 and 70 there is not huge difference in talent and that our board is MUCH different than what the experts had as big boards. To me this would mean that it's very possible we value players that were in the 40s-50s-even 60s of other peoples' drafts very highly and thus it's very possible some of them would still be there at 34.. 

 

At least that's how I'm reading what happened. 

[Chloe6124 9,005]

1 minute ago, krunk said:

Im down with him trading 34 if we move down only just a couple spots. Maybe we can get an extra pick in Rd 3 and somewhere else.  That would allow us to pick up a back and a Tackle to go along with everything else. Between Rd 2 and 3 wed take most of our picks in this draft. Plus dont we have two 4th rounders?

Yes.

[Coltsman1788 1,450]

33 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

We should all know by now Ballard is a straight shooter and doesn’t lie. 

I respect Ballard but he is a man and as such I don’t place my complete trust in anyone to the point of assuming that they are truthful and forthcoming about everything.  It’s naive to believe that.  

 

But it doesn’t even have to be a lie here. Technically, he is not obligated to divulge any information about how his board is ranked.  We don’t know so he can say anything and no one can disprove him. We just have to take his word for it.  Saying some of his 8 are still available casts him in the most favorable light.  Who wouldn’t say that?  I fully expected him to say that.  Whether it’s true or not...we’ll never know.  

[Flash7 1,077]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

At his ore-draft presser, Ballard said picks from roughly 15-70 (55 picks) are roughly the same.  

 

So he drops 20 spots and gets what is likely to be a high R2 pick next year in the process.   Seems like a shrewd move. 

How true do you think that is? Picks 15-70 being about the same? Seems very unlikely.

[NewColtsFan 7,375]

54 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yeah... it's even possible one of the 8 he loved at 26 is still there... 

At his presser, Ballard said there are several of those secret-8 players still available.

 

Tomorrow should be interesting.

 

[NewColtsFan 7,375]

1 minute ago, Flash7 said:

How true do you think that is? Picks 15-70 being about the same? Seems very unlikely.

This is not the first time that it’s happened.   Every so often the sweet spot in the draft is Day 2 and not the first day.  

 

Ballard is a pretty straight shooter and said this at Monday’s presser.   He didn’t have to. 

[DerekDiggler 262]

I can see the Bengirls wanting to move up to get a QB.  So that is the trade I think would happen.   We could get their  42 pick and 72 pick and possibly more. Because the Raiders are a team that could be looking at QB at the 35 pick.   Drew Lock is still there.

 

Never know 

[John Waylon 1,625]

Draft charts are absolute horse pucky because the "value" that they rely on is determined by what talent is in the draft. If next year's class doesn't have the talent in R2 that this year's does how in the hell does that figure into these equations? The whole concept here is talent, not pick position because as we know not all picks are the same.

 

Deal seems a little cheap to me. Would have liked to have gotten another middle round pick thrown in there. But we've got enough extra that it isn't the end of the world so whatever. 

[stitches 7,492]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

? 

 

I get what you're saying about the probability of that future pick and its value. But if some team wants #34 for a future pick, it would cost them a first. To get a third rounder for a future pick, that future pick would need to be a second. This is established in draft/trade history. And that's because future picks get devalued by one round, and there's precedent for this. Part of the reason is you don't know where that future pick will land. It could be #33, it could be #64, and those are very different values. 

 

Yes, but 34 is already at the very top of a 2nd round picks. It makes sense to value it at least as a low-level 1st. Although... again.. if someone offers a future 1st for 34 I will always take that deal(unless of course someone really really high on my board is there at 34 and I don't think it's likely a future 1st will return better player. This is because 1-32 is better than 34 generally. 

 

I know there is a precedent. This is the type of trades the Pats have been feasting on and robbing other teams off. Because they understand that there is nothing inherent about picking in the current draft that is more valuable than picking in next year's draft. Pick X in 2019 is about the same value as pick X in 2020 as it is for pick X in 2021, etc. And if you can get 30 places expected value improvement in for future pick over current pick you always do it. ALWAYS! 

 

This is another one of those old time inefficiencies in the draft that smart GMs abuse the old timers at. This is another one of the "jumpshooting teams can't win championships" mantras that I'm glad our GM actually seems to understand are nonsense. 

 

Quote

 

Now as for how an individual or team values present picks versus future picks, that will vary and is probably situational more than anything. The raw value of a future second is definitely higher than the value of a present third, but the value of having another player on your roster this season is worthy of consideration also. 

 

I'm personally not thrilled with the value on this trade. We went back 20 spots for a future second. I would have liked another pick to even it out a bit, maybe a 5th. 

 

But I'm fine with it. I wanted a trade. Kind of talked myself into Sweat or Tillery, but I've never been over the moon about either guy. Having #34 puts us in range for basically anyone we want, so it's not like we're waiting until #46 to make our first pick. Unless Ballard trades again...

 

 

The value of having a player this year is offset by the value of having the player you pick with the next year's draft pick you got for the last year of his contract. Also... worth pointing out... we didn't lose a player - we still got a pick in the top 50 with this trade. We lost 20 spots in the draft. 

 

In essence the value proposition here is: 4+1 years of the player you would have picked at 26 vs 4 years of the player you will pick at 46 + 4 years of the player you will pick with next year's pick. Pure value wise... if you trust your process, this is a CLEARCUT win. 

 

Now ... the thing that makes things a bit more murky is that Ballard missed on taking players that I personally had ranked in the top 10(Tillery)... So the trade in my case is top 10 value for 46 and future 2nd, which is not great... but I cannot evaluate the trade like this because Ballard is not making this trade based on MY board, but rather on HIS board and I will allow for reasonable difference in evaluation of players. 

[Coltsman1788 1,450]

21 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

He would only have to "spin" it if he didn't think it was a good move, but if he didn't think it was a good move, he wouldn't have done it.

 

If he didn't think it was a good move, he would have just taken the best player on his board.

 

He's already said the talent level from picks 15-70 is about the same, it's just what "flavor" you prefer.  So if you can drop back 20 spots, pick up an extra pick, and still get the "flavor" of player you would have taken at 26, it's a good move.

I think if any of the 8 that Ballard was targeting was still there then he would have made the pick.  Based on his comments in the pre draft presser.  He noted that there were about eight players that he would consider taking with the 1st pick.  He also said that if they weren’t there he would be prepared...meaning plan B.  We all saw the names that were flying off the board at DT and edge before #26 came around.  The trade back was most likely plan B which now is our new plan A.  I’m glad we were able to pick up the 2nd rounder next year but feel like we should have gotten more for how far back we fell into the next round.  

[Four2itus 4,693]

Terrible value = Ballard didn't take a player that fit my value chart...or any number of value charts out there by folks not working in an NFL front office. 

 

In the end, only time will tell. Conjecture is fine. Saying the pick he does end up taking is a steal, or a bust, is simply wrong until it sorts itself out. 

 

I have been saying for years that I felt GM's have tiers....a small group at the top that are near perfect (which we had zero shot at), the next group which all have at least one significant issue (speed, strength, agility, character, health....etc), and then a very large group of players that have several issues. I would guess that Ballard's 8 players, were definitely outside the top group, and fell throughout the second group. They are likely players who are the best fit, character, have the right temperament, and love for the game. Just because several rankings have a player at 62 for instance, doesn't mean that player isn't 15th on someone else's board. 

[Lucky Colts Fan 5,554]

2 minutes ago, Coltsman1788 said:

I think if any of the 8 that Ballard was targeting was still there then he would have made the pick.  Based on his comments in the pre draft presser.  He noted that there were about eight players that he would consider taking with the 1st pick.

 

You believe his 8 player comment in the pre-draft presser, but don't believe his comment about some of them still being available in his post-1st-round presser?

[GoColts8818 4,259]

11 minutes ago, DerekDiggler said:

I can see the Bengirls wanting to move up to get a QB.  So that is the trade I think would happen.   We could get their  42 pick and 72 pick and possibly more. Because the Raiders are a team that could be looking at QB at the 35 pick.   Drew Lock is still there.

 

Never know 

Or the Dolphins.  Teams that need a QB are down to trying to get Lock or trade for Rosen IMO if you want a starter.

[NewColtsFan 7,375]

9 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

Draft charts are absolute horse pucky because the "value" that they rely on is determined by what talent is in the draft. If next year's class doesn't have the talent in R2 that this year's does how in the hell does that figure into these equations? The whole concept here is talent, not pick position because as we know not all picks are the same.

 

Deal seems a little cheap to me. Would have liked to have gotten another middle round pick thrown in there. But we've got enough extra that it isn't the end of the world so whatever. 

 

Are you under the impression that NFL teams have no idea what next year’s draft looks like?   Next year’s draft is already being called loaded at a number of key positions including WR and RB among others.

 

Between Ballard and Dodds and Hogan, this front office knows what it is doing.   They have planned for every possibility including a trade down. 

 

Plus, with the pick belonging to Washington, there’s a good chance the pick will be high in the 2nd round.  

[#12. 1,005]

13 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

How true do you think that is? Picks 15-70 being about the same? Seems very unlikely.

 

On their board, that's probably how they currently have it.  Five years from now, it won't be true, however.  You'll have a wide range of players, from All Pros to busts and everything in between.

[Four2itus 4,693]

13 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

Yes, but 34 is already at the very top of a 2nd round picks. It makes sense to value it at least as a low-level 1st. Although... again.. if someone offers a future 1st for 34 I will always take that deal(unless of course someone really really high on my board is there at 34 and I don't think it's likely a future 1st will return better player. This is because 1-32 is better than 34 generally. 

 

I know there is a precedent. This is the type of trades the Pats have been feasting on and robbing other teams off. Because they understand that there is nothing inherent about picking in the current draft that is more valuable than picking in next year's draft. Pick X in 2019 is about the same value as pick X in 2020 as it is for pick X in 2021, etc. And if you can get 30 places expected value improvement in for future pick over current pick you always do it. ALWAYS! 

 

This is another one of those old time inefficiencies in the draft that smart GMs abuse the old timers at. This is another one of the "jumpshooting teams can't win championships" mantras that I'm glad our GM actually seems to understand are nonsense. 

 

 

The value of having a player this year is offset by the value of having the player you pick with the next year's draft pick you got for the last year of his contract. Also... worth pointing out... we didn't lose a player - we still got a pick in the top 50 with this trade. We lost 20 spots in the draft. 

 

In essence the value proposition here is: 4+1 years of the player you would have picked at 26 vs 4 years of the player you will pick at 46 + 4 years of the player you will pick with next year's pick. Pure value wise... if you trust your process, this is a CLEARCUT win. 

 

Now ... the thing that makes things a bit more murky is that Ballard missed on taking players that I personally had ranked in the top 10(Tillery)... So the trade in my case is top 10 value for 46 and future 2nd, which is not great... but I cannot evaluate the trade like this because Ballard is not making this trade based on MY board, but rather on HIS board and I will allow for reasonable difference in evaluation of players. 

[NewColtsFan 7,375]

18 minutes ago, Coltsman1788 said:

I think if any of the 8 that Ballard was targeting was still there then he would have made the pick.  Based on his comments in the pre draft presser.  He noted that there were about eight players that he would consider taking with the 1st pick.  He also said that if they weren’t there he would be prepared...meaning plan B.  We all saw the names that were flying off the board at DT and edge before #26 came around.  The trade back was most likely plan B which now is our new plan A.  I’m glad we were able to pick up the 2nd rounder next year but feel like we should have gotten more for how far back we fell into the next round.  

At his pressser, Ballard was asked about his 8 targeted players.   Said several were still on the board which is one of the reasons he felt he could do the deal. 

 

When next years Washington pick is a very high 2nd round pick, the value of the deal will look much better than it does to some tonight. 

[Flash7 1,077]

12 minutes ago, #12. said:

 

On their board, that's probably how they currently have it.  Five years from now, it won't be true, however.  You'll have a wide range of players, from All Pros to busts and everything in between.

That’s a little to what I was alluding to. If their board cannot distinguish between players at picks #15 through 70, then I have a problem with their board.

 

We know that a few years from now, there will be a wide array of players within that range.

 

Let’s hope Ballard selects the good ones.

[#12. 1,005]

15 minutes ago, stitches said:

Now ... the thing that makes things a bit more murky is that Ballard missed on taking players that I personally had ranked in the top 10(Tillery)..

 

We had excellent inside info on Tillery - we have his teammate at LG.  If the Colts weren't interested, I'm guessing there were good reasons.  

 

Time will tell.  

[Coltsman1788 1,450]

1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

You believe his 8 player comment in the pre-draft presser, but don't believe his comment about some of them still being available in his post-1st-round presser?

Based on what he said in the pre draft presser, the early run on the top defensive linemen and his action...I don’t believe his initial 8 are still there.  Call that what you will.

 

I never said Ballard was a bald faced liar and that I don’t believe anything that comes out his mouth.  Lol  Just that I don’t think he is above spinning a situation to try to put himself in the best light possible.  Particularly in a situation where no one has any way of knowing for sure what the truth really is.   No one knows the 8 so we have to take his word for it.  We have no real way to fact check him on it.  I’m also saying that I expect pretty much any GM to say what he did.  Ballard knows how to play the game.  I’m looking forward to seeing how he works Plan B.  

[Chloe6124 9,005]

23 minutes ago, Coltsman1788 said:

I think if any of the 8 that Ballard was targeting was still there then he would have made the pick.  Based on his comments in the pre draft presser.  He noted that there were about eight players that he would consider taking with the 1st pick.  He also said that if they weren’t there he would be prepared...meaning plan B.  We all saw the names that were flying off the board at DT and edge before #26 came around.  The trade back was most likely plan B which now is our new plan A.  I’m glad we were able to pick up the 2nd rounder next year but feel like we should have gotten more for how far back we fell into the next round.  

Well if five of the eight are still there it was a good trade since we pick at 34.

[stitches 7,492]

7 minutes ago, #12. said:

 

We had excellent inside info on Tillery - we have his teammate at LG.  If the Colts weren't interested, I'm guessing there were good reasons.  

 

Time will tell.  

Yeah, that's why I'm good with trading back. For whatever reason Tillery was not as high on teams boards as he was on mine. They know much more than me and have better resources to get the pertinent information so... I will just accept that I didn't have the full picture and be good with it. I like the trade. 

[Chloe6124 9,005]

Ballard will probably have picks tomorrow that will have us scratching our heads. Just because the media says they are good or fans say they are doesn’t mean they are right for the colts.