Colts will Likely trade to 1st

[Yoshinator]

All the teams such as the Texans, Colts, Raiders, and Panthers should agree not to trade up to 1 to stick it to the Bears. The Bears are trying to use them all against each other to move up to 1. Force the Bears to pick at 1 and take Carter or Anderson, then after the Texans pick at 2, everyone can trade up at 3 where the price is cheaper. Don't let the Bears pull that crap. Have a GM meeting on Skype and do a gentleman's agreement to force the Bears to pick at 1. That's not against the rules.

[DoubleE Colt]

34 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

All the teams such as the Texans, Colts, Raiders, and Panthers should agree not to trade up to 1 to stick it to the Bears. The Bears are trying to use them all against each other to move up to 1. Force the Bears to pick at 1 and take Carter or Anderson, then after the Texans pick at 2, everyone can trade up at 3 where the price is cheaper. Don't let the Bears pull that crap. Have a GM meeting on Skype and do a gentleman's agreement to force the Bears to pick at 1. That's not against the rules.

I get what you're saying but hasn't it always pretty much been the principle of trading a pick, in particular the first is you play teams off against each other and leverage the best deal. That smoke and mirrors talk has always been done even if the team picking first know they are keeping the pick!

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, DoubleE Colt said:

I get what you're saying but hasn't it always pretty much been the principle of trading a pick, in particular the first is you play teams off against each other and leverage the best deal. That smoke and mirrors talk has always been done even if the team picking first know they are keeping the pick!

Yep, the Bears have the right to do so, and the other teams have a right to not fall for it. I'm just suggesting a way to counter them. It takes two to tango. If there isn't a 2nd team, the Bears have no leverage and are forced to pick at 1.

[DoubleE Colt]

12 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Yep, the Bears have the right to do so, and the other teams have a right to not fall for it. I'm just suggesting a way to counter them. It takes two to tango. If there isn't a 2nd team, the Bears have no leverage and are forced to pick at 1.

Be interesting to see if the owners trusted each other that much lol......can you imagine if one of them renegaded on the deal last min and traded with Bears at low end without competition.

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, DoubleE Colt said:

Be interesting to see if the owners trusted each other that much lol......can you imagine if one of them renegaded on the deal last min and traded with Bears at low end without competition.

Yep, that'd be interesting lol.  

[philba101]

Of course this could be all be posturing, it could all be smoke and mirrors, but knowing Ballard's reputation as conservative and knowing how much he values draft picks, does this really sound like he is planning to trade up to #1?

"I know all the speculation out there," the Colts general manager said. "To move up, there's gotta be a guy worthy of it, OK? This is what's great right now: Everybody has just automatically stamped that you've gotta move up to (No.) 1 to get it right. I don't know that I agree with that. I don't. "But that's going to be the narrative, and that's OK. You've all gotta write something. You've gotta keep the news flowing. I don't necessarily know if that's the right course of business."

 

So, what would it take? "That we were just convicted that there was no freaking doubt that this is the guy," Ballard said. "Each guy's got special qualities, OK? Is there a separating factor within their play that you think, 'OK, there's no doubt this guy fits what we want to do and he's worthy of moving up for'? I'm not ready to say that yet."

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2023/03/01/colts-gm-chris-ballard-says-he-isnt-convinced-team-to-trade-up-for-qb/69935611007/

 

 

 

 

[strt182]

Well if the published Bears asking price for the #1 pick is right then I would be highly upset if the Colts pay it. It is said to be '23 first and second, 24 and 25 firsts.   NO WAY IN HELL.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

54 minutes ago, strt182 said:

Well if the published Bears asking price for the #1 pick is right then I would be highly upset if the Colts pay it. It is said to be '23 first and second, 24 and 25 firsts.   NO WAY IN HELL.

That was only for teams outside top 5.

[Boondoggle]

Market is not set by the team selling the pick.  It's set by what the hungriest team is willing to give up.  So they can say they want ten first round picks but that means nothing.

 

There's a reasonable chance the Colts will make an offer to move up.  I am hopeful they get it done too.  Probably will cost a couple first rounders and a second or third.  First round picks are not all equal btw.  Some teams you know that first rounder will be late in the round.  Colts pick is quite high and I doubt we'll win much with a rookie signal caller so next year's should be top 15 too.

 

The key is hitting on the pick.  If you get your QB and he's a fit for the coaching staff it's worth a couple first rounders.  I do agree that three first rounders is too much though.  At that point I'd wait it out, take BPA in round 1 and then draft Haener later as my QB.

[AwesomeAustin]

Packages I saw floated are 1st and 2nd round picks from this and next years draft along with three 1’s and another pick. In my eyes, there is not a QB in this class worthy of that compensation.  All of these guys seem like the Kirk Cousins and Dak Prescott type of potential.  Good QBs and if you have a complete team you can make the divisional round of the playoffs but they won’t carry the team like elite QBs can. Maybe our staff can develop them into an elite QB but history says the odds are against us. If the team thinks one of these QBs is absolutely the guy, I support whatever they think it’s worth to go get him. 

 

I think trading up to 3 makes more sense if the guy we want is still there. AZ may also want to stay and get a stud defender as well bc it’s tough to pass those up. Unless we can package a player, I’m not a fan of betting the farm on any of these guys. 

[GwinnettColt]

20 hours ago, strt182 said:

Well if the published Bears asking price for the #1 pick is right then I would be highly upset if the Colts pay it. It is said to be '23 first and second, 24 and 25 firsts.   NO WAY IN HELL.

Ballard isn't impulsive or stupid.  I don't think we have to worry about it.  There will be one at four. 

[Crunked]

Basically trading up or down all boils down to this: Get the right assessment on each of the candidates, draft them where that correct assessment places them........its waaaaay more about the evaluation process and how well Ballard and the scouting department does, where that person is drafted should be based on that and that alone....if done right....I am ok with trading up, down, or staying pat.......just .....get......IT......right!

[throwing BBZ]

 

  I will pray that the Texans trade up and take Young.

 Then Steichen can get our winner for a much better price.

  In reality, they are sitting pretty at 2 and should let others burn their picks.

[Lifetime Colt]

5 hours ago, AwesomeAustin said:

Packages I saw floated are 1st and 2nd round picks from this and next years draft along with three 1’s and another pick. In my eyes, there is not a QB in this class worthy of that compensation.  All of these guys seem like the Kirk Cousins and Dak Prescott type of potential.  Good QBs and if you have a complete team you can make the divisional round of the playoffs but they won’t carry the team like elite QBs can. Maybe our staff can develop them into an elite QB but history says the odds are against us. If the team thinks one of these QBs is absolutely the guy, I support whatever they think it’s worth to go get him. 

 

I think trading up to 3 makes more sense if the guy we want is still there. AZ may also want to stay and get a stud defender as well bc it’s tough to pass those up. Unless we can package a player, I’m not a fan of betting the farm on any of these guys. 

AZ will get their stud defender if we trade up with them, Colts will take a QB, they, AZ, has very little risk making that move, any further down by them is where they are left with who remains available.

[GoColts8818]

On 3/3/2023 at 7:58 AM, Jared Cisneros said:

All the teams such as the Texans, Colts, Raiders, and Panthers should agree not to trade up to 1 to stick it to the Bears. The Bears are trying to use them all against each other to move up to 1. Force the Bears to pick at 1 and take Carter or Anderson, then after the Texans pick at 2, everyone can trade up at 3 where the price is cheaper. Don't let the Bears pull that crap. Have a GM meeting on Skype and do a gentleman's agreement to force the Bears to pick at 1. That's not against the rules.

Then the Bears get their choice of the defensive players which is who they are going to draft anyways and the Texans get their QB which might be the guy the Colts, Raiders, Panthers, or anyone else who wants a QB wants.  Those teams lose in that scenario not the Bears.

[Yoshinator]

1 hour ago, GoColts8818 said:

Then the Bears get their choice of the defensive players which is who they are going to draft anyways and the Texans get their QB which might be the guy the Colts, Raiders, Panthers, or anyone else who wants a QB wants.  Those teams lose in that scenario not the Bears.

I would disagree with this. The Bears are going to get their guy no matter what as long as teams are taking QBs ahead of them. If they pick at 1, then they don't get any extra draft picks and just get one player they would have gotten anyway. That also creates one less team ahead of other teams taking a QB and those teams have to pay less to take their QB. The Texans would get their QB without trading up, and a team such as the Colts would only have to pay an extra 2nd or 3rd rounder at worst to move up one spot to get their guy. The only loser in this scenario is the Bears tbh.

[GoColts8818]

11 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I would disagree with this. The Bears are going to get their guy no matter what as long as teams are taking QBs ahead of them. If they pick at 1, then they don't get any extra draft picks and just get one player they would have gotten anyway. That also creates one less team ahead of other teams taking a QB and those teams have to pay less to take their QB. The Texans would get their QB without trading up, and a team such as the Colts would only have to pay an extra 2nd or 3rd rounder at worst to move up one spot to get their guy. The only loser in this scenario is the Bears tbh.

You can disagree all you want but if Bears get their guy either way and the other teams who wanted a specific QB miss out on him to the Texans the losers in that scenario are the teams that didn’t get the QB they wanted not the Bears just because they didn’t get extra draft picks.  They still got the guy they wanted which is the most important thing here.

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

You can disagree all you want but if Bears get their guy either way and the other teams who wanted a specific QB miss out on him to the Texans the losers in that scenario are the teams that didn’t get the QB they wanted not the Bears just because they didn’t get extra draft picks.  They still got the guy they wanted which is the most important thing here.

You're also assuming here that the Texans are taking the QB those other teams want, and that those other teams only want that QB. Odds are, that's not true. The cost of trading up to no3 is much less than no1 for any of those teams. You may lose out on your QB to the Texans, but there are 3 other QBs available in that range. I doubt those teams only like 1 QB of the 4, and it's also the one the Texans take at 2.

[GoColts8818]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

You're also assuming here that the Texans are taking the QB those other teams want, and that those other teams only want that QB. Odds are, that's not true. The cost of trading up to no3 is much less than no1 for any of those teams. You may lose out on your QB to the Texans, but there are 3 other QBs available in that range. I doubt those teams only like 1 QB of the 4, and it's also the one the Texans take at 2.

Yes because the only reason a team would trade with the Bears is if they think the Texans are taking the QB they want.  Since your initial argument was these teams should get together to stick it to the Bears by not trading with them you need to assume why they would even want to trade with the Bears?  Because they think the player they want is going to be gone by the time they pick.  Which means the Texans would take him.  Otherwise no they won’t trade with the Bears and it’s not to stick it to them it’s because they can still get their guy.  
 

So if you want teams to stick it to the Bears by not trading with them then you are assuming they will prioritize sticking it to the Bears rather than getting the guy they want.  Teams aren’t going to do that because they are hurting their own teams more than the Bears making them the losers not the Bears.  No one is trading with Bears just to make a trade.  They are only going to trade with them because they know they have to get in front of the Texans to get the guy they want.  

[Yoshinator]

23 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Yes because the only reason a team would trade with the Bears is if they think the Texans are taking the QB they want.  Since your initial argument was these teams should get together to stick it to the Bears by not trading with them you need to assume why they would even want to trade with the Bears?  Because they think the player they want is going to be gone by the time they pick.  Which means the Texans would take him.  Otherwise no they won’t trade with the Bears and it’s not to stick it to them it’s because they can still get their guy.  
 

So if you want teams to stick it to the Bears by not trading with them then you are assuming they will prioritize sticking it to the Bears rather than getting the guy they want.  Teams aren’t going to do that because they are hurting their own teams more than the Bears making them the losers not the Bears.  No one is trading with Bears just to make a trade.  They are only going to trade with them because they know they have to get in front of the Texans to get the guy they want.  

Of course, in all this, they are usually only assuming will take the guy they want. If they know 100% that the Texans want their QB, and that's the only QB of the 4 they want, then you trade up. Of course, in this case, with such a high draft capital cost, both should be true, and unless there is some sort of leak on the Texans, I don't know if that's possible.

 

I heard that CJ Stroud enjoyed his visit with the Texans and he looks forward to "building their relationship". Is that enough to trade up to 1 though? I don't know. If the Texans do leak something that causes another team to trade up to 1 and steal their QB, someone needs to lose their job IMO.

[GoColts8818]

5 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Of course, in all this, they are usually only assuming will take the guy they want. If they know 100% that the Texans want their QB, and that's the only QB of the 4 they want, then you trade up. Of course, in this case, with such a high draft capital cost, both should be true, and unless there is some sort of leak on the Texans, I don't know if that's possible.

 

I heard that CJ Stroud enjoyed his visit with the Texans and he looks forward to "building their relationship". Is that enough to trade up to 1 though? I don't know. If the Texans do leak something that causes another team to trade up to 1 and steal their QB, someone needs to lose their job IMO.

My point is a team is only going to trade with the Bears because they fear they won’t get the guy they want.  Otherwise there is no point.  So you have to accept that before you event talk about trading with the Bears.  Once you’ve done that and you start talking about not trading with the Bears to stick it to them that’s nonsense because you are only hurting yourself in that scenario because the Bears will still get the guy they want and you won’t.  If they can still get their guy without trading with Bears they won’t trade with them but it’s not to stick it to the Bears it’s because they can still get who they want without it.

[Yoshinator]

5 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

My point is a team is only going to trade with the Bears because they fear they won’t get the guy they want.  Otherwise there is no point.  So you have to accept that before you event talk about trading with the Bears.  Once you’ve done that and you start talking about not trading with the Bears to stick it to them that’s nonsense because you are only hurting yourself in that scenario because the Bears will still get the guy they want and you won’t.  If they can still get their guy without trading with Bears they won’t trade with them but it’s not to stick it to the Bears it’s because they can still get who they want without it.

Yep. That's what the Bears are expecting. Fear from another team. Without that, they have no trade leverage. So I guess a middle ground here would be a GM such as Chris Ballard to tell Ryan Poles, "I want to trade up to 1, but I'm not desperate too. If you meet me in the middle on a price, then I'll do it." Obviously, this could backfire as well as other teams may be desperate and offer more, but you could also cut off a large portion of what you give up to move up. Just go through with your word here and show you're serious. 

 

Unless there's a leak, it's an educated guess what the Texans do. So put on a poker face and force the Bears to agree to your terms in that case. Either that, or they get a defensive player at 1 with nothing extra.

[GoColts8818]

Just now, Jared Cisneros said:

Yep. That's what the Bears are expecting. Fear from another team. Without that, they have no trade leverage. So I guess a middle ground here would be a GM such as Chris Ballard to tell Ryan Poles, "I want to trade up to 1, but I'm not desperate too. If you meet me in the middle on a price, then I'll do it." Obviously, this could backfire as well as other teams may be desperate and offer more, but you could also cut off a large portion of what you give up to move up. Just go through with your word here and show you're serious. 

 

Unless there's a leak, it's an educated guess what the Texans do. So put on a poker face and force the Bears to agree to your terms in that case. Either that, or they get a defensive player at 1 with nothing extra.

Actually that’s kinda what I think Ballard will do.  He’s going to set his price and not move.  That’s his history and unless Irsay makes him move I don’t think Ballard will.  

[Yoshinator]

Just now, GoColts8818 said:

Actually that’s kinda what I think Ballard will do.  He’s going to set his price and not move.  That’s his history and unless Irsay makes him move I don’t think Ballard will.  

Agreed.

[strt182]

If anything It should be sticking it to the Texans like Lovie did. The only team the Bears should be worried about taking their guy would be AZ. If the Colts aren't set on just one guy you don't move or trade back.   

 

The Bears could trade their pick and that team take the guy they want. Not likely but could happen. Its all a crap shot and thats what makes it kinda fun. 

[superrep1967]

On 2/20/2023 at 10:47 PM, AustexColt said:

Irsay/Colts and the Bears are two organization which both families are very closely aligned. Expect the unexpected.

1- Only sure way to get your QB.

2- Eberflus will get his pick of defensive Colt players along with added draft picks

3- Defang Arizona and the Panthers as a threat.

Yes, and it will be for Bryce Young he's the best in the draft. By the way, Dree Brees measured 6'0 207 lbs Bryce Young was 5'10 204 at the combine as you see not much difference and Dree Brees will be a hall of Famer. Byrce Young had a higher completion percentage than Brees did in college. Bryce Young is the real deal no doubt about it. 

[masterlock]

 

[Boondoggle]

On 3/5/2023 at 10:07 PM, superrep1967 said:

Yes, and it will be for Bryce Young he's the best in the draft. By the way, Dree Brees measured 6'0 207 lbs Bryce Young was 5'10 204 at the combine as you see not much difference and Dree Brees will be a hall of Famer. Byrce Young had a higher completion percentage than Brees did in college. Bryce Young is the real deal no doubt about it. 

I just cannot understand the fascination with Young.  He doesn't stand out to me out there, especially given that he's playing with a loaded team around him at that level.  So on top of that to have a kid as short as he is, and projecting him into the pros where he's going to have trouble seeing the field over his OL plus defenses that are far more specialized and dialed in at taking away what a QB does well...  It is a recipe for a disappointing pick, particularly when it's a very high pick.

 

By the way the best player on that offense was Gibbs.  But of course right now the media seem to think the Texas kid is the best RB option in the draft.  This is another area where the experts will need to restack their boards.  QB is the same and we are in the middle of that adjustment right now.

 

I will say I love Young's personality.  But unfortunately I do not love his tape and for myself that is the metric that matters.

[chad72]

Thread closed  

[Old Man and the COLTS]

panthers say they may be willing to trade back 

 

thread reopened

[Patrick Miller]

2 hours ago, Old Man and the COLTS said:

panthers say they may be willing to trade back 

 

thread reopened

I can’t imagine that really happening

[nsurg]

We should trade to first, then trade back to 4th.  Then resign Matt Ryan, or Wentz if Ryan is too expensive.

 

(PM me to hire me as the new GM)

[nyyankeechris]

Hello everyone.   Back to messaging in these boards from a long hiatus.  Always reading everyone's comments tho consistently over the past many years.  I took years off from commenting because it seems like there are more and more people in here who don't value or respect other people's opinions.   But I'm willing to give this another try, because there are some very fine people in here who are quite welcoming and who don't have a "waring" soul.

 

But to my comment on this subject matter is simple.   We have a scared GM.  Who consistently has saved or even traded down to gather more draft picks.  AND on top of that has his reservations about this years QB class when he dosent like to draft, or is hesitant to draft them even when there is a screaming dire need.  This move to #1, or quite possibly even to #3, will NEVER happen.  

 

Just my professional 2 cents of an opinion. 

[JColts72]

16 minutes ago, nyyankeechris said:

Hello everyone.   Back to messaging in these boards from a long hiatus.  Always reading everyone's comments tho consistently over the past many years.  I took years off from commenting because it seems like there are more and more people in here who don't value or respect other people's opinions.   But I'm willing to give this another try, because there are some very fine people in here who are quite welcoming and who don't have a "waring" soul.

 

But to my comment on this subject matter is simple.   We have a scared GM.  Who consistently has saved or even traded down to gather more draft picks.  AND on top of that has his reservations about this years QB class when he dosent like to draft, or is hesitant to draft them even when there is a screaming dire need.  This move to #1, or quite possibly even to #3, will NEVER happen.  

 

Just my professional 2 cents of an opinion. 

Great post and observations on the lack of respect of other posters comments if don't fall into the company line. You are right; Ballard doesn't have it in him to trade up not even to 3. If not under pressure to get a QB; can see him trading down.

[VikingsFanInChennai]

Quote

Colts will Likely trade to 1st 

 

This didn't turn out well. 

 

One day, one year... it may happen. probably not likely yet. 

 

Maybe, after a GM change? 

[nyyankeechris]

I'm just praying that he trusts Steichen to make the pick for him.  Because we "can" get someone at QB at that position (#4) that Steichen will be able to work with and run his syle of offense.  That is the key element here...we don't exactly need the best QB (tangibles, etc)....we need the best one for Shane's system, a QB with a high level of intelligence for adapting to that specific scheme. I hope more people can get on board with this way of thinking moving forward.

 

I mean, honestly, we pilfered Shane as our head coach after all the crazy many hours of thought process, investigation, compiling of research. and interviews for a REASON.  He is a damn fine coach and he definitely has a way of utilizing QB strengths into his scheme and has had great success overall with QBs. 

 

Have faith and patience.   You will see why when we draft our future QB.  My money is on this new regime to get it right and there are plenty of positive additions to the staff to reinforce this feeling of a progressively better overall team in the near future.

[rockywoj]

One might say “scared”, while another might say prudent.  When Ballard moved down from 3 to 6 a few drafts ago, that WAS a bold move!  Trading back is not necessarily “scared”.

 

Trading a mid level number 1 for a young all-pro DT, a position of need, that is a BOLD move, not a scared move.

 

And if not being enamoured with a QB class results in not drastically over-paying to move from 4 to 1 in the draft pecking order, then I call that prudence, not being scared.

 

None of the above being disrespectful, but rather, simple counter-points.

 

As for this entire thread topic, it’s now moot, as VikingFan alluded.  

[jvan1973]

On 3/5/2023 at 11:07 PM, superrep1967 said:

Yes, and it will be for Bryce Young he's the best in the draft. By the way, Dree Brees measured 6'0 207 lbs Bryce Young was 5'10 204 at the combine as you see not much difference and Dree Brees will be a hall of Famer. Byrce Young had a higher completion percentage than Brees did in college. Bryce Young is the real deal no doubt about it. 

Brees was extremely short at 6'.  Young is 2 inches shorter

[rockywoj]

Just now, jvan1973 said:

Brees was extremely short at 6'.  Young is 2 inches shorter

I am 5’9”, if 6’ is extremely short, what the heck does that make me!? lol

 

2” = 1.5” … now look at that distance between your thumb & index finger.  If that short distance makes or breaks a prospect, said prospect has no talent to speak of.

[nyyankeechris]

I should have been more clear, I am sorry.  My mentioning of being "scared" is concentrated on Ballard not pulling the trigger in the last 2 or 3 drafts and picking a QB with a high level draft pick.  He has definitely been intimidated,  hesitant, cautious, or however you would like to call it in this specific area.  As the GM of this team and it's need at that previous time-frame it was and is my opinion that he needed to "swing the bat" so to speak at QB in the draft, and not solely utilize retreads.

 

And again, back at you...not to have you think that I'm being rude at all...but "prudent" is not my characterization of that hesitancy from him.  And if you don't think he was scared then....boy is he ever crapping his pants now, when his job is on the line currently.