Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Was the trade for Buckner worth it?


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Orioles22 said:

Yes, we'd be lucky to be 4-8 without him.

I hate trading first-round picks, but it's hard to imagine we'd get what we should get from Buckner over the next 5-10 years.

 

 

It’s actually a great idea when we need a specific spot  and the draft doesn’t look to promising or worth using our first for an unproven player  I’d Def trade that pick for a still young all pro at a Position if need that is

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

He definitely makes one of the biggest impacts I've seen from any Colts defender.  Which is crazy considering it's not like they had much time to prepare in the offseason due to Covid.  The guy is just a natural game wrecker.  Even if he's not stuffing the stat sheet he's getting consistent pressure on the QBs I feel and quietly wrecking the game. 

 

It's great to have this guy on board until 2024!  Wishing him good health also.  There's just no comparison to how the D is with him in the lineup vs without.   

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I was skeptical of it at first because of both the draft pick and the money that was invested in Bucker.

 

But I will say that thus far it has been proven to be the right move as Buckner appears to have been the missing piece that gave the Colts a top 5 defense.  

 

His presence was sorely missed against the Titans. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dingus McGirt said:

You really felt this is a valid question?  Asked and answered any number of times.  :spit:

I was thinking the same thing.   

What do you hope to get out of a first round pick?  A player who can start and contribute at nearly a pro bowl level.    Buckner contributes at al all pro level.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dogg63 said:

Here are some interesting stats from this season - with and without Buckner on the field.

 

 

Colts defense with Buckner on the field: 18 takeaways, 3 defensive TDs, 3 safeties forced

Colts defense without Buckner on the field: 0 takeaways, 0 defensive TDs, 0 safeties forced

 

Colts defense with Buckner on the field: allows 5.39 yards per play

Colts defense without Buckner on the field: allows 6.38 yards per play

 

With Buckner: 28.72 conversion percentage allowed

Without Buckner: 35.86 conversion percentage allowed

 

With Buckner: 3.27 yards allowed per carry

Without Buckner: 5.16 yards allowed per carry

 

With Buckner: 6.8 percent explosive run plays allowed

Without Buckner: 18.8 percent explosive run plays allowed

 

With Buckner: 6.95 passing yards per attempt allowed

Without Buckner: 7.69 passing yards per attempt allowed

 

With Buckner: 13.37 percent explosive pass plays allowed

Without Buckner: 18.63 percent explosive pass plays allowed

 

With Buckner: 29.82 percent (34/114) opposing drives end with a score (TD/FG)

Without Buckner: 83.33 percent (10/12) opposing drives end with a score (TD/FG)

 

There is enough of a sample size through Week 13 (192 total pass/run attempts without No. 99 on the field) to indicate without a shred of doubt just how important/valuable Buckner is to this defense.

 

There's Aaron Donald and DeForest Buckner, and then there's everyone else.

 

Right...but really SMALL sample size on the other end. And it was one game against the #3 offense in the NFL (DVOA). 

 

Everyone knows Buckner makes an impact though. And a player of his caliber is definitely worth a 1st round pick.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, will426 said:

It’s actually a great idea when we need a specific spot  and the draft doesn’t look to promising or worth using our first for an unproven player  I’d Def trade that pick for a still young all pro at a Position if need that is

You can't do it often.   The contracts for the traded player are huge

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dogg63 said:

Here are some interesting stats from this season - with and without Buckner on the field.

 

 

Colts defense with Buckner on the field: 18 takeaways, 3 defensive TDs, 3 safeties forced

Colts defense without Buckner on the field: 0 takeaways, 0 defensive TDs, 0 safeties forced

 

Colts defense with Buckner on the field: allows 5.39 yards per play

Colts defense without Buckner on the field: allows 6.38 yards per play

 

With Buckner: 28.72 conversion percentage allowed

Without Buckner: 35.86 conversion percentage allowed

 

With Buckner: 3.27 yards allowed per carry

Without Buckner: 5.16 yards allowed per carry

 

With Buckner: 6.8 percent explosive run plays allowed

Without Buckner: 18.8 percent explosive run plays allowed

 

With Buckner: 6.95 passing yards per attempt allowed

Without Buckner: 7.69 passing yards per attempt allowed

 

With Buckner: 13.37 percent explosive pass plays allowed

Without Buckner: 18.63 percent explosive pass plays allowed

 

With Buckner: 29.82 percent (34/114) opposing drives end with a score (TD/FG)

Without Buckner: 83.33 percent (10/12) opposing drives end with a score (TD/FG)

 

There is enough of a sample size through Week 13 (192 total pass/run attempts without No. 99 on the field) to indicate without a shred of doubt just how important/valuable Buckner is to this defense.

 

There's Aaron Donald and DeForest Buckner, and then there's everyone else.

Thanks, Dogg!    Wow!   What a post!!    :thmup:

 

:colts:

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

Right...but really SMALL sample size on the other end. And it was one game against the #3 offense in the NFL (DVOA). 

 

Everyone knows Buckner makes an impact though. And a player of his caliber is definitely worth a 1st round pick.

 

I'm pretty sure the stats are contrasting every play for which Buckner is on the field, vs plays he's not on the field, for the entire season. Not just the Titans game.

 

From the OP: 

There is enough of a sample size through Week 13 (192 total pass/run attempts without No. 99 on the field) to indicate without a shred of doubt just how important/valuable Buckner is to this defense.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a bit of a doubter in the trade. Not that I didn't think Buckner would be good, but I didn't imagine he'd be THIS good and I thought the combination of draft compensation + salary might make this trade a net negative. I was wrong. He's been better than what I expected. If he keeps playing like this for the duration of his contract he would be worth every penny we are giving him and much better than the players you can expect to draft at that position.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really glad the question in the title was rhetorical and not an actual question.

 

34 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yes.  I don't know of anybody who criticized it when it was made ore now.

There were definitely some nay-sayers early on and even into the first 3 or 4 weeks of the season. It was mainly people that said the combination of draft capital and salary were a waste when we could have just drafted Kinlaw and had him on a rookie deal. Kinlaw's career is just beginning, but at this point, we definitely won that trade.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I'm pretty sure the stats are contrasting every play for which Buckner is on the field, vs plays he's not on the field, for the entire season. Not just the Titans game.

 

From the OP: 

There is enough of a sample size through Week 13 (192 total pass/run attempts without No. 99 on the field) to indicate without a shred of doubt just how important/valuable Buckner is to this defense.

 

I know...I still think it's still a SSS. More than 1/3 of it is the recent TEN game (69 plays)...which really skews these numbers. Tannehill had a ridiculously high Y/A (10.0) in that game...and TEN ran for a 5.1 yards/carry on 45 carries...which I am sure are the vast majority of run plays without Buckner in there. 

 

And I assume we are considering runs of 10+ yards to be "explosive runs." TEN had 8-9 of them that game...which is right in line with that explosive run % without Buckner.

 

Also, 10/12 game drives without Buckner were in the game...and TEN scored a TD/FG on 6 of them. 

 

The rest are snaps distributed over 11 games in random game situations...only two of which were considered game drives. Decent chance that we are looking at a lot of garbage time...especially if Buckner was out the entire drive...so more efficiency and scoring is to be expected when the defense is playing vanilla with a lead.

 

Don't get me wrong...I won't argue the premise that Buckner is invaluable to the defense...I just think the Walker's stats are a bit misleading to drive effect. He is basically saying look at how bad the defense was against a top 3 offense and an elite RB without Buckner...which is not surprising at all. 

 

Also...Donald is in a tier of his own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

I know...I still think it's still a SSS. More than 1/3 of it is the recent TEN game (69 plays)...which really skews these numbers. Tannehill had a ridiculously high Y/A (10.0) in that game...and TEN ran for a 5.1 yards/carry on 45 carries...which I am sure are the vast majority of run plays without Buckner in there. 

 

And I assume we are considering runs of 10+ yards to be "explosive runs." TEN had 8-9 of them that game...which is right in line with that explosive run % without Buckner.

 

Also, 10/12 game drives without Buckner were in the game...and TEN scored a TD/FG on 6 of them. 

 

The rest are snaps distributed over 11 games in random game situations...only two of which were considered game drives. Decent chance that we are looking at a lot of garbage time...especially if Buckner was out the entire drive...so more efficiency and scoring is to be expected when the defense is playing vanilla with a lead.

 

Don't get me wrong...I won't argue the premise that Buckner is invaluable to the defense...I just think the Walker's stats are a bit misleading to drive effect. He is basically saying look at how bad the defense was against a top 3 offense and an elite RB without Buckner...which is not surprising at all. 

 

Also...Donald is in a tier of his own.

 

SSS for sure. Just saying that it's not just from one game. And there's no question that the defense is better in both phases when our best DL is on the field, that kind of goes without saying.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TheLegend87 said:

The 49ers are *s for letting him go. Lol.

I love playing the mad libs/what did he write for the * in that sentence game.  It is always something Phillip rivers never says.  

 

ugh.  I procrastinate way too much at work.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stitches said:

I was a bit of a doubter in the trade. Not that I didn't think Buckner would be good, but I didn't imagine he'd be THIS good and I thought the combination of draft compensation + salary might make this trade a net negative. I was wrong. He's been better than what I expected. If he keeps playing like this for the duration of his contract he would be worth every penny we are giving him and much better than the players you can expect to draft at that position.  

 

I wanted to draft a QB early if possible...and trading #13 made that very unlikely. But I really liked the trade. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

I wanted to draft a QB early if possible...and trading #13 made that very unlikely. But I really liked the trade. 

Same, I still think finding the right QB is MUCH more important than finding the right DT, but I'm willing to give some discretion and leeway to Ballard. It's possible he didn't like any of the QBs or didn't think he can get in position to draft the ones he liked so... I'd rather him get the DT he likes than a QB he doesn't like. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Yes.  I don't know of anybody who criticized it when it was made ore now.

 

Besides, it fit the concept of premium talent at a premium position.  Good from day one.

I think I remember that some of the Love-lovers were irked.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, stitches said:

Same, I still think finding the right QB is MUCH more important than finding the right DT, but I'm willing to give some discretion and leeway to Ballard. It's possible he didn't like any of the QBs or didn't think he can get in position to draft the ones he liked so... I'd rather him get the DT he likes than a QB he doesn't like. 

 

Also...to be fair...it would have taken some serious aggressiveness on his part to get either Tua or Herbert. We are likely talking about trading a package similar to what the NYJ gave up (if not more) to get the NYG to give up that #4 pick and move back to #13.

 

And I am sure Ballard has far better information about what other teams are going to do (or are willing to do)...even those teams hide as much as they can. So he knew what it would take.

 

Ultimately, it came down to how much he liked Love I think. And apparently not as much as some thought. I have said before...time will judge that evaluation...but I just think the overall prioritization of getting a young QB got pushed to this upcoming draft/offseason.

  • Like 1
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

    • A lot of people seem to disagree with you, but depending upon how it plays out, you might be right.  If Wentz is playing well, the team is winning and he misses 3-4 games, you would probably rather have a vet.      If Wentz falls on his face, however, you might as well see what you have in Eason before drafting a QB.
    • I don't know that he will command Top 10 money by then.  And Ryan Kelly's compensation actually goes down each year going forward, it was a very front loaded contract by Ballard standards, if I read it correctly.  So the overall compensation given to the line will be top dollar when Nelson and Smith are extended, but I don't think that it will be outrageous.     But we will almost have to fund the RG position with a young player under a rookie contract, IMO.  Might find a replacement for Kelly at some point if he's dinged a lot or becomes too expensive.   If our pricey Olineman are both OTs and the LG, I think we'll be fine.  Might be able to afford a luxury at C if we're not paying WRs top dollar.  I think that's how the cap structure might work under a Reich O.
    • Did Blankenship actually win the kicking competition last year?  More than a few people seemed surprised he won the job.     For nearly 15 years prior to 2019, we never had to think about the kicker.  If Vinatieri ever missed one early, he almost always made up for it late in a clutch situation.  Of course he probably played a year too long in 2019.
    • I like Blankenship, and if we can keep 2 kickers he'd be great. He'd be the "inside the 40" guy, but we'd need a bomb leg for outside the 40. He was short from about 50 last year, that's brutal. Once again, hine sight is 20/20, but we should have signed Gano when Carolina waived him, now the Giants got a pro bowler with a cannon leg.
    • Thanks for sharing   I imagine that you already know this, but whats interesting is that if you look at the Pro Bowl players from the last few years many of them are around 4.7 or even slower    Cameron Jordon ran a 4.69 JJ Watt Ran a 4.81 TJ Watt ran a 4.69 Nick Bosa Ran a 4.79 Joey Bosa Ran a 4.88   Of Course its better to be faster, but a big tall strong guy could be still be a pro bowler   (Of course not saying Dayo has arrived)    My hope is that we have 2 DEs screaming around the edges in the very near future
  • Members

    • luv_pony_express

      luv_pony_express 716

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Flash7

      Flash7 1,142

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • krunk

      krunk 4,384

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • buccolts

      buccolts 2,576

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • dew5150

      dew5150 114

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • #12.

      #12. 1,134

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • TheUnshuffler

      TheUnshuffler 29

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • GoColts8818

      GoColts8818 5,031

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 6,746

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • twfish

      twfish 1,145

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...