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

    • Comp picks will be key next year because if all goes well, that conditional 2nd we gave for Carson will be a late 1st, meaning we’ll be picking low again. Would be nice to have extra picks to maneuver up and down the draft board as needed.
    • I did see the issue with the Broncos. So they have already said they will not pay his 20million? That is a bad stance to have for future FA’s for sure. Players can turn away from select and leave them as a lame duck. The NFL is a smart business but this might blow up in their face. Players will quit doing anything on their own and outside of a mandatory camp or practice these guys won’t be in great shape. That’s the NFL’s fault if this gets any worse. Learn to structure contracts better is what I would tell the NFLPA. 
    • Once we sign Leonard, Smith, and Nelson to long-term contracts am projecting next year the Colts will have limited cap space to sign our own free agents again next off-season such as Hilton, Rhodes, and Pascal to name a few.     Conley is a low risk/high reward player that we should be able to get cheap now for at least 2 years not expecting much this season but in hopes he returns fully healthy on a end of year 2 prove-it deal taking over for Rhodes without breaking the Colt's cap space bank initially but will have more financial leverage in three years.   Thoughts?
    • Once we start resigning players next off-season we won't have much free cap space available to target FAs let alone feel comfortable signing rest of our own.   Right now my early estimates are    LB Leonard 5/100m 60m guaranteed - 5 years $82.5 million 40m   guaranteed  RT Smith 4/58m 30m guaranteed LG Quenton Nelson 6yr/100m  TE Mo Allie-Cox 3yr/33m DE Al-Quadin Muhammad 2yr/4m RB Marlon Mack 2yr/10m (5m APY) if remains  healthy RB Nyheim Hines 3yr/19.5m (6.5m APY) Similar to A. Eckler RG Glowinski 2yr/18m   With around 10m in cap space left over for 2022   So don't expect us to resign Hilton, Rhodes, or Pascal etc.  Wouldn't mind having O'Neill as our future LT but in all reality can't see it happening.
    • Right man. I get that. How many of these teams though are gonna pitch him RT money? Villanueva just got RT money and is all butthurt about it now. Not that I don't blame him but he's talking smack about the wrong people.
  • Members

    • Solid84

      Solid84 33

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coltsfan1965

      coltsfan1965 15

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coming on strong

      coming on strong 1,196

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • cdgacoltsfan

      cdgacoltsfan 683

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jvan1973

      jvan1973 5,599

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Fourstar40

      Fourstar40 16

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Hoose

      Hoose 1,250

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • C0LT5

      C0LT5 68

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • PeytsBlocker

      PeytsBlocker 18

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • IndyEric07

      IndyEric07 143

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