The Trade Down

[Zoltan]

I was thinking Ballard has traded down from his original 1st round pick in the last two drafts, therefore I'm thinking he may do it again.

 

If the QB that he wants gets picked before the 13th, I could see him trade down and get a 1st for next year plus whatever.

 

It wouldn't be my favorite move because there will still be a lot of talent but I always like accruing draft capital, for when you want to move up

[NewColtsFan]

17 minutes ago, Zoltan said:

I was thinking Ballard has traded down from his original 1st round pick in the last two drafts, therefore I'm thinking he may do it again.

 

If the QB that he wants gets picked before the 13th, I could see him trade down and get a 1st for next year plus whatever.

 

It wouldn't be my favorite move because there will still be a lot of talent but I always like accruing draft capital, for when you want to move up

I do not think Ballard would trade down to get a 1st next year.    You’d have to trade down way too far.

 

Remember, we traded down 20 spots, more than half a round, last year just to get a 2 plus a future 2.    So think how far you’d have to get a 2 this year, plus a 1 next year, plus anything else.  
 

I think that would be way too far for  Ballard’s comfort level.    We might trade down a little,  but don’t bet too much on trading down and getting a future first round pick.  
 

Extremely unlikely. 

[Zoltan]

I was trying to find future picks in the trade chart but couldn't find one that showed it,

 

As for previous trades: in 2018 the Packers got 2 first rounders (1 future and the number 27th) for the 14th overall.

 

In this situation I'm thinking 3-4 QBs came off the board so maybe someone wants to jump ahead to grab the player they need.

 

I don't think you can say unlikely because Ballard has been quoted that he likes a lot of draft picks/trading down and has shown that if thinks he can trade down and still get talent he will.

[Thunderbolt]

Quote

 

 

I don't like the idea, of having to trade down every draft.  This is counterproductive, you're not getting the high caliber players that you get in the higher rounds.  Stay put, there will still be QBs that you can get by staying in your spot....

[chad72]

Round 1, I do not see a trade down.

 

But, we can trade down from No.34 with the Falcons who have the Patriots' 2nd round pick (No.55) to get No.55 and No.78 in exchange for No.34. That would give us:

 

2 second round picks at No.44 and No.55

2 third round picks at No.75 and No.78

 

That is the kind of trade I feel Ballard would definitely make. Hope a player the Falcons covet, like an OL, falls to No.34 and we pull off something like that, very close in trade value.

[Matabix]

If the QB isn't there and we are moving on from JB after this year. I don't see why we wouldn't trade down to late 1st. Maybe pick up #28 future 1 and a this year 3rd for #13.

[Hoose]

That 34 pick is like a late round first as far as quality of players available. No way the Colts should trade down to the 55 spot to pick up a 3rd. Honestly, this team needs Playmakers! At QB, DT, WR. And they need them now. The Colts are in a great position to grab genuine talent at all 3 of those positions. Any trade in the 1st two rounds should be limited to a very small move down in return for a day 2 pick. 

[stitches]

This is one of my preferred options in case we don't like any of the QBs in the draft or they get taken before us - trade back and get a future asset to make it easier to move up next year. The only reason I might be reluctant to do it is if AC retires and we have a legit LT there for us to take at 13. Or if a true blue chip prospect is there for us to take. IN this case I would make the pick and try to trade out of #34, potentially for a future 1st if such a deal is available. 

[pacolts56]

If Brown and/or Kinlaw and are still on the board at #13.... I would sprint, pole vault, long jump, shot put and javelin our pick to the podium for either of them. 

 

If they're both gone.... then if I'm Ballard.... we're open for business for a trade down.

[Coffeedrinker]

4 hours ago, Zoltan said:

I was trying to find future picks in the trade chart but couldn't find one that showed it,

For the trade chart future trades are usually the equivalent of one round lower of the current draft position.  So, let's say the Colts are looking to trade back to #20, the 2021 1st round pick will have a value of the 2020 2nd round, #20 pick.

 

[Hoose]

29 minutes ago, stitches said:

This is one of my preferred options in case we don't like any of the QBs in the draft or they get taken before us - trade back and get a future asset to make it easier to move up next year. The only reason I might be reluctant to do it is if AC retires and we have a legit LT there for us to take at 13. Or if a true blue chip prospect is there for us to take. IN this case I would make the pick and try to trade out of #34, potentially for a future 1st if such a deal is available. 

The thing is, at what point are you just churning draft capital for the future and passing on genuinely needed talent? Ballard made the big trade down into the middle of the 2nd round last year in order to get a high pick in this year's 2nd round. Then he  turns around and trades that high 2nd rounder for what.....a low first rounder next year? You begin to chase your tail after a while. Grab the talent now. You can't build through the draft if you refuse to use your picks on the talent that is only going to be  available on Day 1 and early Day 2. At some point, a bunch of low 2nd rounders and 3rd rounders gets you some nice depth, but not the game changers you need. Time to go for it!

[BProland85]

I would absolutely love Ballard doing a slight trade down, add an additional 2nd or so, and still be able to land a Javon Kinlaw, Jerry Jeudy, or CeeDee Lamb. 

[chad72]

2 hours ago, Hoose said:

That 34 pick is like a late round first as far as quality of players available. No way the Colts should trade down to the 55 spot to pick up a 3rd. 

 

If they feel the play makers they covet will be available at No.44, because of the additional second round pick at No.44, they can afford to trade down to 55. Last year, Ballard refused to do that and felt like Rock-Ya-Sin wouldn't be there if he dropped down further and stood pat at No.34. He could very well do the same if the guy he wants at No.34 is someone he does not think will be there at No.44. However, if he feels he has 2 or 3 guys that he is targeting at No.34, and one of whom they think will be there at No.44, I definitely see him making the trade down. With the deep WR class, they can afford to throw more darts at the draft board this way, IMO, for the skill positions.

 

The flip side is, if they really like Herbert, they can move up with one of the 2nd round picks and a future 1st to move from No.13 to No.4, which is what it will take. That would also be cashing in your chips, just a different way.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

If the QB is not there at 13 And they don’t trade up Kinlaw is most likely going to be there. It would be really bad to trade down if Kinlaw is sitting right there for us to take. 

[stitches]

1 hour ago, Hoose said:

The thing is, at what point are you just churning draft capital for the future and passing on genuinely needed talent?

Until it doesn't make sense anymore. Until we get a franchise QB, this should be priority no. 1 - getting a player that can be our franchise QB. If we are not getting the franchise QB now, we should be accumulating future assets to help us get him next year. Also, those trades actually make sense value-wise in most cases.

 

Quote

Ballard made the big trade down into the middle of the 2nd round last year in order to get a high pick in this year's 2nd round. Then he  turns around and trades that high 2nd rounder for what.....a low first rounder next year? You begin to chase your tail after a while.

 

No you don't. He's getting value out of those trades. He's done REALLY REALLY well with the value of those so far. Until there are teams willing to give you that value you should be making those trades. (that's generally - in some rare cases you might have a player on your board that you think is worth more than the return, in which case you make the pick.

 

Quote

Grab the talent now. You can't build through the draft if you refuse to use your picks on the talent that is only going to be  available on Day 1 and early Day 2. At some point, a bunch of low 2nd rounders and 3rd rounders gets you some nice depth, but not the game changers you need. Time to go for it!

 

That's not exactly the case. The value of low 1st is about the same(slightly higher) as the value of early-mid second. So if you can trade 26 for mid-second + another second, it makes perfect sense to do that trade. The dirty little secret of the NFL is that over the long haul there isn't much of a difference between NFL front offices in their pick success and the way to succeed is to acquire multiple picks in similar, although slightly lower range. In the most simplified way I can explain it - it's better to have 2 picks with 45% success rate than one pick with 50% success rate. 

 

Again - disclaimer - in rare cases where you have a player that you value much higher than the picks you would be getting, you have to take the player and refuse the trade. Also QBs are so much more valuable than other positions that they too require their own special set of circumstances. 

[#12.]

He joked about trading down to Dakich, in a way that made me think it's not going to happen.  

 

 

[shasta519]

3 hours ago, chad72 said:

Round 1, I do not see a trade down.

 

But, we can trade down from No.34 with the Falcons who have the Patriots' 2nd round pick (No.55) to get No.55 and No.78 in exchange for No.34. That would give us:

 

2 second round picks at No.44 and No.55

2 third round picks at No.75 and No.78

 

That is the kind of trade I feel Ballard would definitely make. Hope a player the Falcons covet, like an OL, falls to No.34 and we pull off something like that, very close in trade value.

I think Ballard values that early 2nd round pick too much. It’s where he got Leonard and Ya-Sin...arguably his two favorite players of the last two drafts.

 

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

Until it doesn't make sense anymore. Until we get a franchise QB, this should be priority no. 1 - getting a player that can be our franchise QB. If we are not getting the franchise QB now, we should be accumulating future assets to help us get him next year. Also, those trades actually make sense value-wise in most cases.

 

 

No you don't. He's getting value out of those trades. He's done REALLY REALLY well with the value of those so far. Until there are teams willing to give you that value you should be making those trades. (that's generally - in some rare cases you might have a player on your board that you think is worth more than the return, in which case you make the pick.

 

 

That's not exactly the case. The value of low 1st is about the same(slightly higher) as the value of early-mid second. So if you can trade 26 for mid-second + another second, it makes perfect sense to do that trade. The dirty little secret of the NFL is that over the long haul there isn't much of a difference between NFL front offices in their pick success and the way to succeed is to acquire multiple picks in similar, although slightly lower range. In the most simplified way I can explain it - it's better to have 2 picks with 45% success rate than one pick with 50% success rate. 

 

Again - disclaimer - in rare cases where you have a player that you value much higher than the picks you would be getting, you have to take the player and refuse the trade. Also QBs are so much more valuable than other positions that they too require their own special set of circumstances. 

The conspiracy theorist in me has wondered if part of the reason for last year’s trade was accumulating assets because he knew he might need to get a QB this year. 
 

QB is definitely top priority. I saw someone post that Ballard will take BPA at #13 and gamble on a QB being there later. That is just a bizarre mentality to me.

 

The value of a low-1st is more valuable...especially with the 5th year option. And that’s probably even more true this year because of the impending CBA. The rumblings are that rookie cost control will change...either with just less years of control or the removal of the team option. I think this is what has driven the trade market in the past year or so...as teams (who were likely to draft late) seemed more willing than ever to give up 1st round picks. It’s almost as if they know the value of those picks will go down somewhat.
 

So to be able to lock in a QB for at least 5 years is huge. 

[Stephen]

Ballard  trades back for two seconds and a future first

[chad72]

9 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

I think Ballard values that early 2nd round pick too much. It’s where he got Leonard and Ya-Sin...arguably his two favorite players of the last two drafts.

 

 

The offer has to be sweet. So, the Falcons would have to give No.47 and No.78 instead of No.55 and No.78, IMO, to get that pick from Ballard.

[ponyboy]

If four QBs and three OTs go before pick 13, that means at least one of these blue chip positional prospects will be available at 13.

 

Chase Young
Isaiah Simmons
Jeff Okudah
Derrick Brown
CeeDee Lamb
Jerry Jeudy

 

Pick #13 looks like the spot where the blue chip positional talent and top-4 QBs will still be guaranteed available.  It would be hard not to take one of these 6 or one of top three OTs at this point.

 

When this pick on on the clock I bet there will be a lot of interest from teams wanting to move up, and Colts would have leverage to demand a bit more than the trade charts typical would indicate because they can keep the pick and get a blue chip prospect.

 

[Fisticuffs111]

I’m hoping we just take the talent available, depending on how the draft shakes out.

 

Not totally opposed to trading down, but if there’s a really good talent there I don’t think it’d be wise to pass up on that. Ballard talks about building the core through the draft and whoever we get at 13 could be a fixture of our team.

[stitches]

6 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

The conspiracy theorist in me has wondered if part of the reason for last year’s trade was accumulating assets because he knew he might need to get a QB this year. 
 

I don't think it is. The most analytics savvy teams have admitted to what I wrote above - I've heard both Howie Roseman and Ballard say something to that effect- that you should be humble and know your limitations as evaluator and that in the long run pretty much all teams' success is similar and that getting more picks/shots is the key to getting more value. 

 

Quote

QB is definitely top priority. I saw someone post that Ballard will take BPA at #13 and gamble on a QB being there later. That is just a bizarre mentality to me.

To me BPA is a misnomer. I am going to post an extreme example here for demonstration purposes - imagine you can draft the best punter in the history of football... How high will you draft this guy? He can arguably have the claim to be the best player in most drafts. The best player at what he does. But noone would dare draft him in the 1st, let alone top 5.

 

To me when people say BPA, what they really should mean is best VALUE available. Because the value a kicker gives you would be nowhere near the value most other positions will give you even if they are nowhere near the best ever at their position. People intuitively know this when we talk about QBs because they know they get overdrafted but it seems like they cannot pin down why. Value is why. If you believe the different types of WAR/EPA metrics that PFF and others are developing, this becomes immediately obvious - even if they are not perfect and if you can find warts with them - the best of the best defensive player in the last 3 years gets about 1.8 WAR every year and the second most valuable defensive lineman usually hovers around 1.1-1.3 WAR. Andy Dalton used to get about 1.8 in previous years. Even the most average QBs in the league can return about the same value to you as the best of the best ... maybe the best ever defensive player in league. The elite QBs give you something in the range of 3 to 6 WAR(depending on the year).  This is the truth of the value calculations. This is why QBs get overdrafted - because the reward is SO MUCH BIGGER than any other position. In fact (if you need a QB) the calculation is not "Is Kinlaw better player than Herbert?". He very well might be. The question is "Is Kinlaw more likely to return more value to you than Herbert?" or "What's more likely - Kinlaw is the best DT in the history of the league or Herbert is an average QB?"

 

So sorry about the detour but yeah - I agree with you - it's weird watching people invent reasons why we should postpone drafting QB in favor of DTs or WRs or any other position. It's bizzare indeed. 

 

Quote

 

The value of a low-1st is more valuable...especially with the 5th year option. And that’s probably even more true this year because of the impending CBA. The rumblings are that rookie cost control will change...either with just less years of control or the removal of the team option. I think this is what has driven the trade market in the past year or so...as teams (who were likely to draft late) seemed more willing than ever to give up 1st round picks. It’s almost as if they know the value of those picks will go down somewhat.
 

So to be able to lock in a QB for at least 5 years is huge. 

 

Agreed. The value of QB is high by the nature of the position and furthermore the excess value you get because you are not paying him tons for 3-4-5 years while others are paying 30M+ for their QBs, adds additional incentive for teams to draft QBs when they need one.

[Jackie Daytona]

31 minutes ago, stitches said:

This is the truth of the value calculations. This is why QBs get overdrafted - because the reward is SO MUCH BIGGER than any other position. In fact (if you need a QB) the calculation is not "Is Kinlaw better player than Herbert?". He very well might be. The question is "Is Kinlaw more likely to return more value to you than Herbert?" or "What's more likely - Kinlaw is the best DT in the history of the league or Herbert is an average QB?"

Yeah, you make a point.  I don't think anyone who regularly posts here is confused as to why a QB is graded on a different scale value wise though.  They touch the ball every offensive snap....  I also don't think anyone is disillusioned over the semantics of your "best player available" straw man.  

 

We all know that an above average QB has greater impact and importance to overall team success than all but the rarest, elite players at other positions.

 

So, while I get it... So does everyone else, give the fans here SOME credit.  ; )

[stitches]

20 minutes ago, Shafty138 said:

Yeah, you make a point.  I don't think anyone who regularly posts here is confused as to why a QB is graded on a different scale value wise though.  They touch the ball every offensive snap....  I also don't think anyone is disillusioned over the semantics of your "best player available" straw man.  

 

We all know that an above average QB has greater impact and importance to overall team success than all but the rarest, elite players at other positions.

 

So, while I get it... So does everyone else, give the fans here SOME credit.  ; )

Reading a lot of posts here doesn't give me the impression that most people get it. People get that QB is the most important position(this was not my main point... I assume they get it), but IMO a lot of people don't realize just how much more important it is. This was the more precise point to my argument above - it was the scale of the difference, not that there is a difference. 

[richard pallo]

I think this whole topic is really dependent on what we do with the QB position in FA.  If we sign a FA QB like Rivers, for example,  then I think the likelihood of trading back in the 1st round increases.  Ballard will have secured his bridge QB for a few years and the perceived need to trade up will be removed and they can move to the idea of drafting a QB later and let him develop behind the new starter.  They could then let the draft come to them and if by chance the QB you love is there at 13 you can still take him or if not you trade the pick at 13 and move back even slightly to pick up another pick or two.  I like the idea of picking up another 2nd and then trading back into the end of the 1st to get the QB and the 5th year option.  That would give us two picks in the 1st rd.  I think signing the FA QB early gives more flexibility in building the roster while we are at the same time working the QB issue.  

[stitches]

37 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I think this whole topic is really dependent on what we do with the QB position in FA.  If we sign a FA QB like Rivers, for example,  then I think the likelihood of trading back in the 1st round increases.  Ballard will have secured his bridge QB for a few years and the perceived need to trade up will be removed and they can move to the idea of drafting a QB later and let him develop behind the new starter.  They could then let the draft come to them and if by chance the QB you love is there at 13 you can still take him or if not you trade the pick at 13 and move back even slightly to pick up another pick or two.  I like the idea of picking up another 2nd and then trading back into the end of the 1st to get the QB and the 5th year option.  That would give us two picks in the 1st rd.  I think signing the FA QB early gives more flexibility in building the roster while we are at the same time working the QB issue.  

I kind of feel like acquiring an old vet like Rivers almost doesn't change anything. Like... whoever it is... you still know it's just a bridge to the next QB. Just like Jacoby is now. You still need to get the next guy ASAP and when you are getting your next guy QB is not the position to be stingy at. You go get the guy you like. don't just go out there and bargain bin shop. 

[#12.]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

I kind of feel like acquiring an old vet like Rivers almost doesn't change anything. 

 

If they sign Rivers, I'm guessing they would also draft a QB, just maybe not a QB everyone is talking about. 

 

I have a feeling it might go like the following.  Khari Willis - Ballard said he had Willis graded as high as safeties that went earlier.  Ballard will draft Eason or someone, say something similar and everyone will be happy and fall in line.  "BDB had a similar grade on Herbert and Eason.  He knows what he's doing".

 

 

[stitches]

5 minutes ago, #12. said:

 

If they sign Rivers, I'm guessing they would also draft a QB, just maybe not a QB everyone is talking about. 

 

I have a feeling it might go like the following.  Khari Willis - Ballard said he had Willis graded as high as safeties that went earlier.  Ballard will draft Eason or someone, say something similar and everyone will be happy and fall in line.  "BDB had a similar grade on Herbert and Eason.  He knows what he's doing".

 

 

Why though? Like... why would you let a player that's on his way out determine who your NEXT QB should be? This is what I don't get? IMO if you are searching for your next QB, your decision should be ONLY about that new QB. It doesn't matter who he's going to sit behind... Jacoby or Rivers... you still want to draft the best possible QB in the draft, you still want to draft the QB you love the most. If they love Eason the most, then so be it... 

 

I guess we'll see... 

[EastStreet]

Purely my opinion, but you trade down when either 1) your roster overall is bad and have a ton of areas in need of upgrade, and/or 2) the positions that are in need of upgrade, are very deep in the particular draft. 

 

I think the last couple years we've had "overhaul" needs, and additional medium picks were more important than high picks. IMO, the roster is a lot more balanced/solid in terms of starters and depth.

 

At some point, you need to use the high picks for the big needs, and for game changing talent. We have a big need at QB, and need a game changing talent at iDL, so IMO, we won't trade back this year. If anything, we could trade up. I'm not really talking about trading our 1st to move up. I'm talking about packaging both our 2s to get back into the top 20 of the 1st. 

[#12.]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

Why though? Like... why would you let a player that's on his way out determine who your NEXT QB should be? This is what I don't get? IMO if you are searching for your next QB, your decision should be ONLY about that new QB. It doesn't matter who he's going to sit behind... Jacoby or Rivers... you still want to draft the best possible QB in the draft, you still want to draft the QB you love the most. 

 

I wouldn't see it as determining it.  At 13, it's not that easy.  You might have to take a different path.  If you were top 5, you would probably just take Herbert and be done with it.  At 13, I don't know.  You might go free agent, plus draft pick, depending upon who you like. 

 

We'll know in a few months.

[EastStreet]

5 minutes ago, stitches said:

Why though? Like... why would you let a player that's on his way out determine who your NEXT QB should be? This is what I don't get? IMO if you are searching for your next QB, your decision should be ONLY about that new QB. It doesn't matter who he's going to sit behind... Jacoby or Rivers... you still want to draft the best possible QB in the draft, you still want to draft the QB you love the most. If they love Eason the most, then so be it... 

 

I guess we'll see... 

I agree you go for the best you can get. I also think that if you get a good prospect, you try to improve the mentor of that young prospect. I'd much rather have a guy like Rivers mentoring someone like Herbert, Love, or Eason, than JB and/or Hoyer.

[Hoose]

I still think that the Colts are in an ideal position to grab three high quality impact players in the first 2 days. I’d hate to see them trade out of the 13 pick unless the payoff is just so great in 2020 draft picks that Ballard can’t resist.  Like a 2-5 spot drop in the 1st for an additional 2nd or very early 3rd round 2020 pick. You can live with that because the payoff is now and the price isn’t painful.  I want to see the team improve this year with difference makers.... especially in the passing game. The Colts need to improve now.

 

That said, I DO agree with Stitches that if the Brass believes the future franchise QB is gettable, you use your 2020 firepower to grab him now. Finding a long term replacement for Brissett is the highest priority.... and would be the biggest difference maker of all if they nail the pick.  

 

[funktacious2]

I think trading down is certainly on the table. If the QB and top players we covet for 13 are gone then I'm sure we will be fielding partners for the right trades. But I'm leaning towards thinking we won't because I'm thinking it unlikely that there isn't going to be someone there the Colts really like. Either the QB they want may fall, or due to a run of QBs some a top 5-9 non-QB will probably fall to us.

[joecolts]

9 hours ago, chad72 said:

Round 1, I do not see a trade down.

 

But, we can trade down from No.34 with the Falcons who have the Patriots' 2nd round pick (No.55) to get No.55 and No.78 in exchange for No.34. That would give us:

 

2 second round picks at No.44 and No.55

2 third round picks at No.75 and No.78

 

That is the kind of trade I feel Ballard would definitely make. Hope a player the Falcons covet, like an OL, falls to No.34 and we pull off something like that, very close in trade value.

This!  This is the scenario I'd LOVE to see.  This is Ballard-ball 

[Rackeen305]

10 hours ago, chad72 said:

Round 1, I do not see a trade down.

 

But, we can trade down from No.34 with the Falcons who have the Patriots' 2nd round pick (No.55) to get No.55 and No.78 in exchange for No.34. That would give us:

 

2 second round picks at No.44 and No.55

2 third round picks at No.75 and No.78

 

That is the kind of trade I feel Ballard would definitely make. Hope a player the Falcons covet, like an OL, falls to No.34 and we pull off something like that, very close in trade value.

But I thought many were saying that we "COLTS" need OL help ourselves?

[chad72]

29 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

But I thought many were saying that we "COLTS" need OL help ourselves?

OG vs OT, we need OT help in a year or two if AC stays, depends on if Ballard would spend an early pick on it. 

[TimetobringDfence!]

If Derrick Brown or Kinclaw are both gone I would be okay trading for a lower 1st and extra 2nd. We need young Dline talent first. Possibly a OT if AC retires. Grab a QB in the second round. And best reciever after that. Then best depth available. I think we could add one strong FA player on D. Preferably a proven CB. I believe your trenches make your reflex players better. When you dominant both sides of the line everyone else looks so much better. Outside of QB brissett proved that lol.

[Moosejawcolt]

11 hours ago, pacolts56 said:

If Brown and/or Kinlaw and are still on the board at #13.... I would sprint, pole vault, long jump, shot put and javelin our pick to the podium for either of them. 

 

If they're both gone.... then if I'm Ballard.... we're open for business for a trade down.

Like I have said and I have been wrong before.  I see Ballard moving up a couple of spots to get Brown or Kinlaw than trading up to get a qb

[Orioles22]

10 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

If the QB is not there at 13 And they don’t trade up Kinlaw is most likely going to be there. It would be really bad to trade down if Kinlaw is sitting right there for us to take. 

I agree, but I take Kinlaw no matter who else is there...except Burrow.