These are the Colts 2021 Draft Picks (For Now)

[NewColtsFan]

 

These will change in Late Feb or Early March once the 32 compensatory picks are announced....

 

But for now....

 

R1    Pick 21

R2    Pick 54

R3    Pick 84

R4    Pick 117

R5    Pick 148

R6    Pick 180

R7    Pick  211

 

Picks in R's 4-7 are TBA.   They will be the ones that change.

 

[stitches]

All of them for no.2 to Jets. Who says no? 

[NewColtsFan]

I think the Jets do -- easily.

 

The Colts 7 picks value out at just under 1450 points.

 

The 2nd pick alone is valued at 2600 points.    So, we're at least a mid-first round pick away from coming close to a deal.

 

I know a whole draft sounds exciting and sexy,  but in black and white practical terms, we're coming from so far down,  that all 7 picks just isn't enough.   Wish it wasn't so.

[GoColts8818]

24 minutes ago, stitches said:

All of them for no.2 to Jets. Who says no? 

I say no.  How’d that work for the Saints when they did that for Ricky Williams or the Vikings when they did that for Walker?  The Colts have more than one major need to address this off-season and with the cap situation they need as many picks as they can get.  

[NewColtsFan]

38 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

I say no.  How’d that work for the Saints when they did that for Ricky Williams or the Vikings when they did that for Walker?  The Colts have more than one major need to address this off-season and with the cap situation they need as many picks as they can get.  

 

I think your second sentence is the key....

 

We have so many pressing issues,  that we need all the assets we can get.....

 

QB, LT, DE, CB, WR, TE,  LB,  S,  depth OL

 

 

[stitches]

40 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

I say no.  How’d that work for the Saints when they did that for Ricky Williams or the Vikings when they did that for Walker?  The Colts have more than one major need to address this off-season and with the cap situation they need as many picks as they can get.  

I mean... hopefully we are not trading up Najee Harris or Travis Etienne. Then for SURE I don't want anything to do with it. But if you can get Wilson or Fields? I'd do that any day. I think people are weirded out by the number of picks rather than by the value. 

 

This whole Colts draft past R1 has worse value than an average additional 1st. 

https://www.drafttek.com/nfl-trade-value-chart.asp

 

R2    Pick 54 - 360 pts

R3    Pick 84 - 170

R4    Pick 117 - 60

R5    Pick 148 - 31

R6    Pick 180 - 18.2

R7    Pick  211 - 5.8

 

-----------------------------

The total value is 645, which is the equivalent to the 29th pick of the draft. 

 

My solution here would be to take our future 1st and trade it for late 1st or early 2nd this year.... then trade down a bunch of times to replenish the volume of picks for this year. Seattle has done similar things in recent years when they didn't have tons of picks.

 

Example:

Trade future 1st for no. 33... 

Trade 33(580) for 50(400) and 81(185)

Trade 50(400) for 58(320) and 100(100) => pick at 58

Trade 81(185) for 92(132) and 124(48) => pick at 92

Trade 100(100) for 107(80) and 169(22.6) 

Trade 107(80) for 117(60) and 180(18.2) => pick at 117, pick at 124, pick at 169, pick at 180

 

So in essense for 21 and 2022 1st rounder you get... no.2 and your pick of a QB after Lawrence, 2nd rounder(58), 3d rounder(92), 2x 4th rounders(117 and 124) and 2x 6th rounders(169 and 180). 

 

That's just an example of what can be done. 

[stitches]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think the Jets do -- easily.

 

The Colts 7 picks value out at just under 1450 points.

 

The 2nd pick alone is valued at 2600 points.    So, we're at least a mid-first round pick away from coming close to a deal.

 

I know a whole draft sounds exciting and sexy,  but in black and white practical terms, we're coming from so far down,  that all 7 picks just isn't enough.   Wish it wasn't so.

My hope would be a GM is blinded by the volume and the headlines rather than the absolute value. We've seen teams do that trade in the past, where it's bad value-wise but it looks good on paper. Now the question is - are the Jets or MIA this easily fooled? Probably not but yeah... it's a fun hypothetical. 

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

My hope would be a GM is blinded by the volume and the headlines rather than the absolute value. We've seen teams do that trade in the past, where it's bad value-wise but it looks good on paper. Now the question is - are the Jets or MIA this easily fooled? Probably not but yeah... it's a fun hypothetical. 

 

I can only think of one team that did that....    New Orleans traded their whole draft for Ricky Williams I think in the early 2000's.  And I don't think it's been done since.

 

Trading up that far is really,  really expensive.    There's good reason why he doesn't like the idea of trading up that far.  First, it's incredibly expensive.    Second,  hitting on the right quarterback in in the first round,  even high in the first round is roughly a 50-50 proposition.

 

Look at Phily and the Rams.   Both traded a bundle to move to the top of the first...   picks 1 and 2 to take Goff and Wentz.   Both have had a moments.    And as of today,  neither is comfortable in their job.   Both are on the hot seat.

 

Look at the top of the '18 draft.   Mayfield and Allen are winners.    Darnold and Rosen not so much.    You gotta move down to the bottom of the first to add in Lamar Jackson...    who would've thought he'd work out as well as he did.   Props to Baltimore.

 

But it's a huge gamble.   It's hit and miss on the most scrutinized position in Pro Sports.  

[stitches]

25 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I can only think of one team that did that....    New Orleans traded their whole draft for Ricky Williams I think in the early 2000's.  And I don't think it's been done since.

 

Trading up that far is really,  really expensive.    There's good reason why he doesn't like the idea of trading up that far.  First, it's incredibly expensive.    Second,  hitting on the right quarterback in in the first round,  even high in the first round is roughly a 50-50 proposition.

 

Look at Phily and the Rams.   Both traded a bundle to move to the top of the first...   picks 1 and 2 to take Goff and Wentz.   Both have had a moments.    And as of today,  neither is comfortable in their job.   Both are on the hot seat.

 

Look at the top of the '18 draft.   Mayfield and Allen are winners.    Darnold and Rosen not so much.    You gotta move down to the bottom of the first to add in Lamar Jackson...    who would've thought he'd work out as well as he did.   Props to Baltimore.

 

But it's a huge gamble.   It's hit and miss on the most scrutinized position in Pro Sports.  

Yeah it is expensive and I'm generally against trading up in the draft, and I'm much more a fan of trading down, but as I've said before there is one exception for that rule. It's the QB. Like with many things QBs tilt the conversation on its head. Just the value if you hit is SO BIG, that you have to do it if you get the chance(and you love the QB sitting there of course). There is practically no bad trade value if you trade up for a QB and he hits. 

 

Also, about the hit rates of QBs. my opinion is that it's not just about the QB and his talent/drive/determination/work ethic. The environment, teammates, coaching, etc. play a big role in whether they succeed or fail. There are very few Andrew Lucks who will succeed no matter what garbage you throw at them(and he was thrown into one of the biggest piles of garbage in the league when it comes to GM-coach combo + the talent around him). For most QBs, even highly drafted, their talent needs to be guided and nurtured in the right direction. And in this line of thoughts - I think some of those QBs could have been successful in another environment and/or with a bit more luck(Darnold/Wentz), while others were probably doomed from the start because of their own failings(Rosen, Trubisky). And here is where I think we actually have somewhat of an advantage. I like our GM and our FO. I like our coach generally(even if I have some playcalling beefs with him). I like our roster and the foundations of our OLine. I think this situation gives better than average chance to a young QB to succeed. It's still no guarantee, but again... at some point you will have to make a move of some sort. We cannot keep rethreading the Rivers' of the world.  At some point Ballard will have to trust his evaluation of a QB he loves and just do what it takes to get him. 

[NewColtsFan]

53 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yeah it is expensive and I'm generally against trading up in the draft, and I'm much more a fan of trading down, but as I've said before there is one exception for that rule. It's the QB. Like with many things QBs tilt the conversation on its head. Just the value if you hit is SO BIG, that you have to do it if you get the chance(and you love the QB sitting there of course). There is practically no bad trade value if you trade up for a QB and he hits. 

 

Also, about the hit rates of QBs. my opinion is that it's not just about the QB and his talent/drive/determination/work ethic. The environment, teammates, coaching, etc. play a big role in whether they succeed or fail. There are very few Andrew Lucks who will succeed no matter what garbage you throw at them(and he was thrown into one of the biggest piles of garbage in the league when it comes to GM-coach combo + the talent around him). For most QBs, even highly drafted, their talent needs to be guided and nurtured in the right direction. And in this line of thoughts - I think some of those QBs could have been successful in another environment and/or with a bit more luck(Darnold/Wentz), while others were probably doomed from the start because of their own failings(Rosen, Trubisky). And here is where I think we actually have somewhat of an advantage. I like our GM and our FO. I like our coach generally(even if I have some playcalling beefs with him). I like our roster and the foundations of our OLine. I think this situation gives better than average chance to a young QB to succeed. It's still no guarantee, but again... at some point you will have to make a move of some sort. We cannot keep rethreading the Rivers' of the world.  At some point Ballard will have to trust his evaluation of a QB he loves and just do what it takes to get him. 

Agreed....   at some point.    Where there will be wide disagreement is...   when the point is? 
 

We have a prominent poster who complained back in late November-early December that Ballard had yet to address fixing the long-term QB situation.   And he was exasperated over that.

 

I noted that Luck had only been retired for roughly 15 months and Ballard has had exactly one free agent window and one draft. That’s it.   I’m re-telling this story not to give that poster a hard time, but simply to say to others here, just be patient.  Hasn’t Ballard earned a high level of trust here?   I think so.

 

I trust that when Ballard finds a QB he likes, he’ll pull the trigger. 

[stitches]

17 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Agreed....   at some point.    Where there will be wide disagreement is...   when the point is. 
 

IMO the point where you had to have that conversation was last year. And it's now too... and it will be the point until long-term QB is addressed. Just... the moment you don't have a long-term QB is the moment you should start looking for one and not stop until you do have one. Now that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some room for executive decisions and that's why I have not criticized Ballard for not taking a QB high last year. 

Quote

We gave a prominent poster who complained back in late November-early December that Ballard had yet to address fixing the long-term QB situation.    And he was exasperated over that.

 

I noted that Luck had only been retired for roughly 15 months and Ballard has had exactly one free agent window and one draft. That’s it.   I’m re-telling this story not to give that poster a hard time, but simply to say to others here, just be patient.  Hasn’t Ballard earned a high level of trust here?   I think so.

 

I trust that when Ballard finds a QB he likes, he’ll pull the trigger. 

Agreed. Again... I give some leeway to Ballard about his QB decisions, he likes whoever he likes and I would rather him draft any other position player that he likes, rather than a QB he doesn't like. But, with every passing FA/trade/draft window, the QB question will continue to become bigger and bigger. If we don't get our long-term QB this off-season it will be 3 years and drafts since Luck's retirement that he will be have the chance to address it. This is not ideal. We are threading water in the meantime. At some point unwillingness to take a shot over a long period of time becomes indecision and inability rather than patience. 

[Shive]

6 hours ago, stitches said:

Yeah it is expensive and I'm generally against trading up in the draft, and I'm much more a fan of trading down, but as I've said before there is one exception for that rule. It's the QB.

I was going to say that this is really unlike you. We tend to be on the same page most of the time with prospects and draft strategy, but I'm not on this one. I can understand the overall value of a QB that hits, but we'd be talking trading the farm for Fields or Wilson, who aren't by any means close to a "sure thing" as someone like Lawrence. I could at least understand the thought process of trading everything for a generational QB prospect, but I think Fields and Wilson aren't on that level and there's too much bust potential there for so much draft capital.

 

Honestly, if there was going to be a trade up that high for a QB, I think it would be more like the RG3 trade where you're trading this year's 1st & 2nd, as well as the 1st for the next 2 years. Ballard places way too high of a value on the 2-4th round picks to trade away too much. I know your scenario involved trades to get us mid-round picks back, but I think that's way too much of an assumption that you could line up the perfect trade partners for all of those trades. I don't see those trades, or Ballard being willing to mortgage everything to get a non-generational QB talent, happening.

 

  

5 hours ago, stitches said:

If we don't get our long-term QB this off-season it will be 3 years and drafts since Luck's retirement that he will be have the chance to address it. This is not ideal. We are threading water in the meantime. At some point unwillingness to take a shot over a long period of time becomes indecision and inability rather than patience. 

Luck only retired 2 years ago in the preseason of 2019 and we've only had 1 draft since then. We went with JB in 2109, then Rivers in 2020, while drafting Eason. I wouldn't classify it as an unwillingness to take a shot just yet, especially since after Love was taken unexpectedly in the 1st by GB, there wasn't really any other QB's worth taking after the fact aside from Eason.

[stitches]

1 hour ago, Shive said:

I was going to say that this is really unlike you. We tend to be on the same page most of the time with prospects and draft strategy, but I'm not on this one. I can understand the overall value of a QB that hits, but we'd be talking trading the farm for Fields or Wilson, who aren't by any means close to a "sure thing" as someone like Lawrence. I could at least understand the thought process of trading everything for a generational QB prospect, but I think Fields and Wilson aren't on that level and there's too much bust potential there for so much draft capital.

"Sure thing" and "generational QB prospects" don't get traded. They are extremely rare and the teams that draft no. 1 in that draft let legends like Peyton Manning go so they can give the mantle to the new generational superstar. So if you want a surefire thing... you have to both be really bad and be lucky to be really bad in a once a decade draft. Both Wilson and Fields would be no.1 type of picks almost any other year in which there isn't a Luck or a Lawrence type of talent at the top of the board. Most no. 1 type of QBs are not surefire things, most have their questions and uncertainties. That doesn't mean they are not worth the pick and the trade up if that's what a team decides to do. If we want a high level talent at QB we will most probably have to trade up in the draft or be extremely lucky to have one drop(I don't want to rely on that one and I don't think getting lucky is a real plan). 

 

Colts fans have been having extremely hard time with uncertainty because they've not been in that position recently... We've had certainty at the QB position for the last 20 years. Andrew Luck and Peyton Manning are not walking through that door and we should get comfortable with that position we are in. Most other teams are in that position most of the time. 

 

 

Quote

 

Honestly, if there was going to be a trade up that high for a QB, I think it would be more like the RG3 trade where you're trading this year's 1st & 2nd, as well as the 1st for the next 2 years. Ballard places way too high of a value on the 2-4th round picks to trade away too much. I know your scenario involved trades to get us mid-round picks back, but I think that's way too much of an assumption that you could line up the perfect trade partners for all of those trades. I don't see those trades, or Ballard being willing to mortgage everything to get a non-generational QB talent, happening.

I agree. I think trading up to no. 2-3 will probably cost a lot more than this whole Colts draft(purely value-wise). And most probably it will have to involve multiple trades. Something like what Philly did to get Wentz or what Buffalo did to get Allen - trade up to the 10-12 range and then try to make the final jump to no. 2 or 3 or.. 8 or wherever you think you can get your guy. 

 

Also agree on your assessment that this is too much of a assumption about those specific trades, but I still think you can get tons of trades if you clearly signal to other teams that this is what you are looking to do. Check Seattle's draft from a several years ago when they didn't have many picks besides their 1st and they turned it into tons and tons of mid round picks. They traded 26 to 31, then 31 to 34, then 34 to 35 and accumulated multiple picks in later rounds in the process. Of course I doubt it would be as clean as I did it here, but something like this is very possible if Ballard decides to work the phones and other teams know we are looking for picks and willing to trade down. I actually think the 1st trade is the most problematic and least likely - not sure if there will be a team willing to give up a late 1st or early second for next year's 1st. From then on, I think it's actually not that farfetched to think you can trade down multiple times and get good value and volume of picks back. 

 

Quote

  

Luck only retired 2 years ago in the preseason of 2019 and we've only had 1 draft since then. We went with JB in 2109, then Rivers in 2020, while drafting Eason. I wouldn't classify it as an unwillingness to take a shot just yet, especially since after Love was taken unexpectedly in the 1st by GB, there wasn't really any other QB's worth taking after the fact aside from Eason.

Love was not the only option. There were clear avenues to trade up from 13 to 3-4 for Herbert or Tua. But again ... I'm not saying that based on 1 draft. I'm talking about a hypothetical where we don't draft a franchise QB this year too... and push it back one more year... then it will be the 3d year after Luck's retirement when we will have the chance to address it. This is not a short period of time. Q and Leonard and Braden's cheap rookie contracts will be over by then... 

[NewColtsFan]

6 hours ago, stitches said:

IMO the point where you had to have that conversation was last year. And it's now too... and it will be the point until long-term QB is addressed. Just... the moment you don't have a long-term QB is the moment you should start looking for one and not stop until you do have one. Now that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some room for executive decisions and that's why I have not criticized Ballard for not taking a QB high last year. 

Agreed. Again... I give some leeway to Ballard about his QB decisions, he likes whoever he likes and I would rather him draft any other position player that he likes, rather than a QB he doesn't like. But, with every passing FA/trade/draft window, the QB question will continue to become bigger and bigger. If we don't get our long-term QB this off-season it will be 3 years and drafts since Luck's retirement that he will be have the chance to address it. This is not ideal. We are threading water in the meantime. At some point unwillingness to take a shot over a long period of time becomes indecision and inability rather than patience. 

3 years?    You mean 2.    
 

Ballard did not fix the long term QB issue in 2020.  So far, that’s the ONLY opportunity he’s had.   So if he doesn’t again this year — 2021 — that’ll be the second year.   Not the third.

 

Just want to be sure we’re on the same page. 

[stitches]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

3 years?    You mean 2.    
 

Ballard did not fix the long term QB issue in 2020.  So far, that’s the ONLY opportunity he’s had.   So if he doesn’t again this year — 2021 — that’ll be the second year.   Not the third.

 

Just want to be sure we’re on the same page. 

It will be the 3d year or 3d draft when he will have the chance to fix it if he doesn't fix it now. In other words - yes, 2 years without addressing it with the 3d being the earliest he can do it. 

2021 is the second year without Luck(and with a draft and FA window) and second opportunity to fix the QB spot. 

[Crunked]

I dont think we have enough capital draft wise to get a meaningful QB this year, I think the prudent answer is find a one year band aid be it Rivers or whoever, try to make it with them and hope Eason gets enough rep experience and shows ability and readiness for 2023 while you fill what holes you can outside of QB this season; If Eason doesnt pan out and show strong starter capabilities during this season....then go all in 2023-24 to draft your starter. It is definitely a giant uphill crap shoot no matter what Ballard ends up doing.....there is no scenario that isnt full of mammoth risk...I just dont see this QB draft class outside of the top 2 or maybe 3 that have shown enough to take that big of a risk.....and I think its all but official you cannot count T. Lawerence in that count this year as he has probably already picked a jersey # with the Jags, we just get to wait to make it official. 

[John Hammonds]

On 1/19/2021 at 2:39 AM, stitches said:

All of them for no.2 to Jets. Who says no? 

Mike Ditka says yes.

[John Hammonds]

On 1/19/2021 at 2:37 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

These will change in Late Feb or Early March once the 32 compensatory picks are announced....

 

But for now....

 

R1    Pick 21

R2    Pick 54

R3    Pick 84

R4    Pick 117

R5    Pick 148

R6    Pick 180

R7    Pick  211

 

Picks in R's 4-7 are TBA.   They will be the ones that change.

 

Will this be the first draft in the CB era (sans 2017) where we didn't come into the draft with multiple 2nd and 3rd round picks created from previous drafts?  It all feels so strange.  I'm gonna check my driver's license to see if it is still me.