Colts have the 15th pick in the draft. (MERGE)

[BlackTiger]

On 2/2/2024 at 8:59 PM, DougDew said:

What I'll say is that if the pick is at any one of those positions, and its not some sort of special wonky consensus reach of some sort, then it will be a good pick.

I read this and have something to add.

 

There is a really good receiving TE in this draft and I'd be pretty surprised if hes not on the colts draft board as someone they would take if hes the top choice left

[Stephen]

2 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Bowers will never be there at 15. He is graded as generational and with the impact TE's are having on the game, I would expect at least a top 10 pick.  Even though people love Marvin, it could be argued that Bowers could be more impactful because of his skill set to a young qb. The great Bill Walsh always felt that a wr is the last position that you draft and some would argue that the game has changed. It is funny because if you look at the last 4 teams in the play offs, they were mostly there because they were solid up front and not because of elite wr play. I have been beating the drum for a wr at 15 but like others have pointed out, we need play makers at just about every position. To me, I really dont care who they pick at 15. My concern based on previous drafts is that the player chosen will not become an elite play maker. Sure, the RAS will be out of this world, but Ballard tends to pick on upside rather than what that player has actually done in college. I just want a football player at 15 with 3 years of great tape!! I will worry about how high he can jump and how fast he can run later on.

For example  if brian thomas jr devontez  walker are on the board and we pick devontez over brian thomas I will be highly  upset

[Nesjan3]

4 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

He claimed a lot of things trying to save his own skin.   The US government investigation lasted quite awhile. Nothing could be corroborated.  The leagues are sitting on goldmines.   There is no reason to put it at risk

You could look at it from that angle. You could also look at it from an angle of he was caught already, had nothing to lose and wanted to spill the truth. While the NBA does everything in its power which is a lot power in order to cover their own * and make him the sole fall guy and main culprit.

 

There is always multiple angles and the unfortunate thing about the world we live in is the NBA a multi billion dollar corporation, the governments of the world and Tim Donaghy are all about equally as trustworthy. Which is not trustworthy in the slightest bit. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Nesjan3 said:

There is always multiple angles and the unfortunate thing about the world we live in is the NBA a multi billion dollar corporation, the governments of the world and Tim Donaghy are all about equally as trustworthy. Which is not trustworthy in the slightest bit. 

 

This basically gives anyone in the world the freedom to push a theory about any big entity, and then defend that theory by saying 'these entities aren't trustworthy, they're capable of anything, including this theory I'm pushing.' 

 

I don't "trust" the NBA or the NFL. But that doesn't mean I just accept any unproven theory that I hear about them. 

[Nesjan3]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This basically gives anyone in the world the freedom to push a theory about any big entity, and then defend that theory by saying 'these entities aren't trustworthy, they're capable of anything, including this theory I'm pushing.' 

 

I don't "trust" the NBA or the NFL. But that doesn't mean I just accept any unproven theory that I hear about them. 

Im not trying to say it is or isn't the truth. Im just saying when all the people feeding you the information are untrustworthy its probably best to stay neutral and accept that a wide spectrum of truths are likely possible.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Nesjan3 said:

Im not trying to say it is or isn't the truth. Im just saying when all the people feeding you the information are untrustworthy its probably best to stay neutral and accept that a wide spectrum of truths are likely possible.

 

So if two people who aren't trustworthy are telling you their version of a story, do you just accept that either of their versions could be the truth? Or do you listen, compare what they're telling you to what you already know, analyze the likelihood of either version, and form an opinion? 

[Nesjan3]

Just now, Superman said:

 

So if two people who aren't trustworthy are telling you their version of a story, do you just accept that either of their versions could be the truth? Or do you listen, compare what they're telling you to what you already know, analyze the likelihood of either version, and form an opinion? 

I try not to form opinions, doesn't always work of course. My philosophy is stay neutral, stay open minded. "We" meaning us the general population likely dont ever have the real facts. So whats the point.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Nesjan3 said:

I try not to form opinions, doesn't always work of course. My philosophy is stay neutral, stay open minded. "We" meaning us the general population likely dont ever have the real facts. So whats the point.

 

Okay, but if one person claims that there's a magical flying elephant that lays a golden egg each spring, and inside the egg is the script for this year's NFL season... versus the traditional viewpoint that claims there is no script... Do you just stay neutral and open minded, and say 'neither side is trustworthy, so I can't say one side is more likely than the other'? 

 

Maybe you leave room for the small possibility that each side could be true, but wouldn't you at least want to see some kind of evidence of the flying, egg laying elephant?

[Nesjan3]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Okay, but if one person claims that there's a magical flying elephant that lays a golden egg each spring, and inside the egg is the script for this year's NFL season... versus the traditional viewpoint that claims there is no script... Do you just stay neutral and open minded, and say 'neither side is trustworthy, so I can't say one side is more likely than the other'? 

 

Maybe you leave room for the small possibility that each side could be true, but wouldn't you at least want to see some kind of evidence of the flying, egg laying elephant?

Ok well a magical flying elephant is way far off to one side of the spectrum. Much much different than saying the refs in the NFL maybe call a few plays in favor of certain teams in order for betting purposes or something else versus the common thinking that it would be impossible to pull off. When it happened in the NBA just 20 years ago. Stay open minded within reason.

[BProland85]

1 hour ago, Stephen said:

For example  if brian thomas jr devontez  walker are on the board and we pick devontez over brian thomas I will be highly  upset

Would love Brian Thomas Jr in the early 2nd or a trade down into the late 1st to get him. 
 

Walker could be had in round 3. 

[Superman]

32 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

Ok well a magical flying elephant is way far off to one side of the spectrum. Much much different than saying the refs in the NFL maybe call a few plays in favor of certain teams in order for betting purposes or something else versus the common thinking that it would be impossible to pull off. When it happened in the NBA just 20 years ago. Stay open minded within reason.

 

Just trying to establish the principle, even with an absurd example. The principle is that the truth doesn't always lie in the middle. We can usually recognize what's true and what's not, and even if we're not sure, we don't give equal credence to opposing theories if one of those theories has no basis in reality. That's the case even if we don't necessarily trust any of the sources of information. So if one person says NFL games are fairly played, and another person says the outcome is decided by a flying, golden egg laying elephant, we don't put the elephant theory on the spectrum at all, not without convincing evidence.

 

My point is that being open minded and neutral is not the same thing as accepting an unlikely and unproven theory as a legitimate possibility. Generally speaking, a person would not accept such a theory unless they were presented with evidence, and that evidence needs to be convincing. The more far-fetched the theory, the more convincing the evidence must be. And then the evidence gets scrutinized, based on a variety of factors, to see if it actually proves anything.

 

The idea that NFL games are purposely altered is not as unlikely and far-fetched as the elephant theory. But it does call into question a lot of baseline understanding that we have about the NFL. And while it's technically possible, it would still be an incredible scandal, involving thousands of people, affecting a multi billion dollar business that co-exists with multi-multi billion dollar industries. It seems reasonable to expect that a scandal of that magnitude would be exposed eventually. There should be some sort of compelling evidence. And then that evidence should be able to withstand some scrutiny.

 

Instead, when people ask for evidence, eventually the response comes around to some version of 'Really, you trust the NFL? How naive!' 

 

[Nesjan3]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Just trying to establish the principle, even with an absurd example. The principle is that the truth doesn't always lie in the middle. We can usually recognize what's true and what's not, and even if we're not sure, we don't give equal credence to opposing theories if one of those theories has no basis in reality. That's the case even if we don't necessarily trust any of the sources of information. So if one person says NFL games are fairly played, and another person says the outcome is decided by a flying, golden egg laying elephant, we don't put the elephant theory on the spectrum at all, not without convincing evidence.

 

My point is that being open minded and neutral is not the same thing as accepting an unlikely and unproven theory as a legitimate possibility. Generally speaking, a person would not accept such a theory unless they were presented with evidence, and that evidence needs to be convincing. The more far-fetched the theory, the more convincing the evidence must be. And then the evidence gets scrutinized, based on a variety of factors, to see if it actually proves anything.

 

The idea that NFL games are purposely altered is not as unlikely and far-fetched as the elephant theory. But it does call into question a lot of baseline understanding that we have about the NFL. And while it's technically possible, it would still be an incredible scandal, involving thousands of people, affecting a multi billion dollar business that co-exists with multi-multi billion dollar industries. It seems reasonable to expect that a scandal of that magnitude would be exposed eventually. There should be some sort of compelling evidence. And then that evidence should be able to withstand some scrutiny.

 

Instead, when people ask for evidence, eventually the response comes around to some version of 'Really, you trust the NFL? How naive!' 

 

You know thats a very fair and well thought out response. Thanks, and all I really said in the first place is that although unlikely its not out of the realm of possibility as many people seem to assume. However I do hold firm in my belief that facts and information provided to us the general public are likely often skewed, misleading, or downright false. Which does kind of open a pandoras box of possibilities. Everyone thinks differently, life is a trip. I choose to stay open minded.

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

You know thats a very fair and well thought out response. Thanks, and all I really said in the first place is that although unlikely its not out of the realm of possibility as many people seem to assume. However I do hold firm in my belief that facts and information provided to us the general public are likely often skewed, misleading, or downright false. Which does kind of open a pandoras box of possibilities. Everyone thinks differently, life is a trip. I choose to stay open minded.

 

Yeah, I think 'not out of the realm of possibility' is a fairly innocuous and noncommittal statement to make, and I don't think most people would take objection to it. The major pushback is to people who swear up and down that pro sports are scripted and rigged, and then call everyone who disagrees a blind sheep.

 

Personally, I think the magnitude of the scandal makes it unlikely. I don't disagree with the idea that public information is often unreliable, but when you start talking about thousands of people and literally hundreds of billions of dollars at risk, among dozens of businesses and multiple industries... At some point, someone has to lose something, on a major scale. And then the whole thing crumbles, the curtain gets pulled back, and everything gets exposed. We've seen major scandals in business and government, this is how it goes. I don't think the NFL or any major sports league would be immune.

[Nesjan3]

24 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, I think 'not out of the realm of possibility' is a fairly innocuous and noncommittal statement to make, and I don't think most people would take objection to it. The major pushback is to people who swear up and down that pro sports are scripted and rigged, and then call everyone who disagrees a blind sheep.

 

Personally, I think the magnitude of the scandal makes it unlikely. I don't disagree with the idea that public information is often unreliable, but when you start talking about thousands of people and literally hundreds of billions of dollars at risk, among dozens of businesses and multiple industries... At some point, someone has to lose something, on a major scale. And then the whole thing crumbles, the curtain gets pulled back, and everything gets exposed. We've seen major scandals in business and government, this is how it goes. I don't think the NFL or any major sports league would be immune.

Yes I agree unlikely. Being open minded is so far removed from the conspiracy theorists who push their agenda and chastise anyone who tries to disagree with them. Big difference IMO. 

 

There is still the scandal in the NBA that happened only 20 years ago though and back then im sure people were making the exact same points your making about it being to intricate to be possible. Then it was revealed that it was happening. On what exact scale I dont think we will ever know the exact truth. 

 

We have seen so many major scandals, in all aspects of life, going back to the beginning of time pretty much. Thats almost indefinite proof right there that there is many more currently going on in todays world. I dont think all of them unravel in the way you describe. Its a fascinating topic to say the least.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

There is still the scandal in the NBA that happened only 20 years ago though and back then im sure people were making the exact same points your making about it being to intricate to be possible. Then it was revealed that it was happening. On what exact scale I dont think we will ever know the exact truth. 

 

To be clear, I'm not saying it's too intricate to be possible. I'm saying it's too intricate -- and too grand in scope -- to be covered up for very long.

 

And that's probably an area in which we hold opposing viewpoints. You seem to see the exposure of a previous scandal not only as evidence that scandals can happen, but as evidence that they MUST be happening all the time. My position is that when the scope is grand and the stakes are high, the scandal will be exposed. And what people are suggesting about the NFL would certainly qualify as grand scope and high stakes.

[jvan1973]

2 hours ago, Nesjan3 said:

You know thats a very fair and well thought out response. Thanks, and all I really said in the first place is that although unlikely its not out of the realm of possibility as many people seem to assume. However I do hold firm in my belief that facts and information provided to us the general public are likely often skewed, misleading, or downright false. Which does kind of open a pandoras box of possibilities. Everyone thinks differently, life is a trip. I choose to stay open minded.

A rogue ref is a thing I could say is plausible.   The league it's self predeterming outcomes is absolute nonsense.   They have no reason to.   And if they were,  I'm pretty sure vegas would know about it and not take the action.   Small brain folks will always assume the nonsense.   The leagues have no reason to cheat.   They make barrels of money no matter what happens

[MB-ColtsFan]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

A rogue ref is a thing I could say is plausible.   The league it's self predeterming outcomes is absolute nonsense.   They have no reason to.   And if they were,  I'm pretty sure vegas would know about it and not take the action.   Small brain folks will always assume the nonsense.   The leagues have no reason to cheat.   They make barrels of money no matter what happens

To me it's even more than that.  It would take every top player from every team to be in on the fix.  That's a LOT of players over the course of X amount of years.  To go along with what Sups said, the chances of someone spilling the beans along the way is quite high. 

 

Imagine being out of the league for a few years and money is running low.  Why wouldn't that player run to a media outlet and get boodles of money to expose the league?  The odds of that happening are (in my opinion) greater than the big fix being in.  It's just too risky for the league to take that chance (like jvan just stated).

 

I also agree that a rogue ref and/or player is plausible.  Remember how Strahan was given a gift by Farve on his sack record back in '02?  Yeah, that was a real "legit" sack...

[MikeCurtis]

3 hours ago, Stephen said:

For example  if brian thomas jr devontez  walker are on the board and we pick devontez over brian thomas I will be highly  upset

Devontez will be late 2 or early 3

 

I think Brian Thomas will be around 20 in round 1

[jvan1973]

43 minutes ago, MB-ColtsFan said:

To me it's even more than that.  It would take every top player from every team to be in on the fix.  That's a LOT of players over the course of X amount of years.  To go along with what Sups said, the chances of someone spilling the beans along the way is quite high. 

 

Imagine being out of the league for a few years and money is running low.  Why wouldn't that player run to a media outlet and get boodles of money to expose the league?  The odds of that happening are (in my opinion) greater than the big fix being in.  It's just too risky for the league to take that chance (like jvan just stated).

 

I also agree that a rogue ref and/or player is plausible.  Remember how Strahan was given a gift by Farve on his sack record back in '02?  Yeah, that was a real "legit" sack...

Folks that belive its rigged will never listen to reason.  They ignore the obvious 

 

@LJpalmbeacher2 and @Yoshinator

[MB-ColtsFan]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

Folks that belive its rigged will never listen to reason.  They ignore the obvious 

 

@LJpalmbeacher2 and @Yoshinator

IF that is true then it is unfortunate.  Keeping an open mind and being open to a possibility of it being true is about as far as I can get, but that's just me.  It being a high probability or it being true is just beyond the fact stage at this point.  Facts are important.

[smittywerb]

I’m coming around to drafting bowers at 15 if we can trade back into the first or early second and grab someone like leggette. I just fear if we sit and wait, teams in the late first round will grab up the rest of the highly graded wide receivers 

 

Definitely can see the chiefs, ravens, and cardinals (to name a few) grabbing wide receivers in the 20s.  By the time we pick in the second round, 6 or more of the top 10 wide receivers in the draft could be gone.  
 

idk, another part of me questions picking Brock bowers.  Yeah, he’s a weapon, but is he explosive?  We need a player to operate outside of the space that Pittman and downs will occupy.  I haven’t looked into Brock really but could someone give me some insight?

[NewColtsFan]

29 minutes ago, smittywerb said:

I’m coming around to drafting bowers at 15 if we can trade back into the first or early second and grab someone like leggette. I just fear if we sit and wait, teams in the late first round will grab up the rest of the highly graded wide receivers 

 

Definitely can see the chiefs, ravens, and cardinals (to name a few) grabbing wide receivers in the 20s.  By the time we pick in the second round, 6 or more of the top 10 wide receivers in the draft could be gone.  
 

idk, another part of me questions picking Brock bowers.  Yeah, he’s a weapon, but is he explosive?  We need a player to operate outside of the space that Pittman and downs will occupy.  I haven’t looked into Brock really but could someone give me some insight?

Smitty….  This is again going to be an extremely deep class of very good WRs.   If we don’t take a WR in the first, I don’t think we’ll have to trade up in the second to get a good one.   
 

Remember, last year the Colts selected Downs at pick 79.   And the year before when the Colts took Pierce at 53 there was also Pickens taken at 52, and Sky Moore taken at 54.   So when there’s a good and deep class, good wide receivers still last deep into Day 2.    There are lots of other examples, but you get the idea. 
 

I’m confident there will be a WR in the 50’s that Strichen and Ballard like.  This is another very good and deep class.  
 

There’s also the possibility of a trade back in the first which will net an additional pick in the 30’s or 40’s and that’s yet another way this can be handled.   
 

Bottom line:  the Colts have lots of good options. 

[ChuggaBeer]

Anyway.............   I think they have safety 1a or 1b 

[TrueBlue12]

I'm starting to believe that Bowers is likely to be the best option. Lately the best teams seem to all have excellent tight ends and I think there is good reason for that.

[TaylorStillTruckedYou]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Smitty….  This is again going to be an extremely deep class of very good WRs.   If we don’t take a WR in the first, I don’t think we’ll have to trade up in the second to get a good one.   
 

Remember, last year the Colts selected Downs at pick 79.   And the year before when the Colts took Pierce at 53 there was also Pickens taken at 52, and Sky Moore taken at 54.   So when there’s a good and deep class, good wide receivers still last deep into Day 2.    There are lots of other examples, but you get the idea. 
 

I’m confident there will be a WR in the 50’s that Strichen and Ballard like.  This is another very good and deep class.  
 

There’s also the possibility of a trade back in the first which will net an additional pick in the 30’s or 40’s and that’s yet another way this can be handled.   
 

Bottom line:  the Colts have lots of good options. 

Wouldn't mind a trade back, and target Kam Kitchen.  His interviews give off that Veteran vibe at such a young age.  Could be a blue chip player that one

[smittywerb]

9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Smitty….  This is again going to be an extremely deep class of very good WRs.   If we don’t take a WR in the first, I don’t think we’ll have to trade up in the second to get a good one.   
 

Remember, last year the Colts selected Downs at pick 79.   And the year before when the Colts took Pierce at 53 there was also Pickens taken at 52, and Sky Moore taken at 54.   So when there’s a good and deep class, good wide receivers still last deep into Day 2.    There are lots of other examples, but you get the idea. 
 

I’m confident there will be a WR in the 50’s that Strichen and Ballard like.  This is another very good and deep class.  
 

There’s also the possibility of a trade back in the first which will net an additional pick in the 30’s or 40’s and that’s yet another way this can be handled.   
 

Bottom line:  the Colts have lots of good options. 

with that said, I’m on the bowers train.  Dude is a beast.   Thank you for helping me with my fears lol 

[Stephen]

9 hours ago, TrueBlue12 said:

I'm starting to believe that Bowers is likely to be the best option. Lately the best teams seem to all have excellent tight ends and I think there is good reason for that.

Doubt Bowers is there at 15

[MB-ColtsFan]

2 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Doubt Bowers is there at 15

Agree.  At this point I have seen only one mock where he fell to us.  Still time for things to change, but...

[GoColts8818]

4 hours ago, MB-ColtsFan said:

Agree.  At this point I have seen only one mock where he fell to us.  Still time for things to change, but...

The combine hasn’t even happened yet so yes things will change.  Still I don’t expect Bowers to be there at 15 (I don’t think there is much chance he gets past the chargers) but if he is I hope the Colts run the card to the podium and draft him,

[smittywerb]

How id hope our first 3 picks go:

1. Bowers.  If he’s not available, Thomas or Odunze (if he falls), if they’re not available, idk lol.

2. Wide Reiceiver, if get bowers then either Leggette or AD.  If we get a WR with the first pick, then best CB available

3.  Best linebacker available

 

the rest of the picks should depth on the OL and anywhere else needed.

 

hoping in free agency we sure up the defense with vets.  Ballard mentioned how young our defense is so I doubt he looks to get younger.  Go defense in free agency and in the draft get AR some young talented weapons along with depth.  I’d be a happy colts fan if the off-season played out this way.

[Moosejawcolt]

On 2/5/2024 at 11:25 AM, richard pallo said:

The only way in my opinion to get an elite playmaker guaranteed at pick 15 is to trade for that player.  Just like Ballard did for Buckner.  This could be the year he does it again.  Most likely WR or ER if I were him.  Three years of NFL tape beats three years of college tape every day for me.

U can get a legit player maker anywhere in the draft it is just at #15, your chances increase ten fold. I have never been a fan of Ballard's trading down.  It has not  really worked out  as  I think he has passed on some legit play makers.

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, Moosejawcolt said:

U can get a legit player maker anywhere in the draft it is just at #15, your chances increase ten fold. I have never been a fan of Ballard's trading down.  It has not  really worked out  as  I think he has passed on some legit play makers.

Chances are just that chance.  It can be 10 fold or 20 fold but there is not 100% certainty with any draft pick even the first pick.  But there is 100% certainty when you trade for a proven elite player who has already proven his elite capabilities in the league.  I don’t know why you’re bringing up trading down. That was never part of my comment.

[GoColts8818]

1 hour ago, Moosejawcolt said:

U can get a legit player maker anywhere in the draft it is just at #15, your chances increase ten fold. I have never been a fan of Ballard's trading down.  It has not  really worked out  as  I think he has passed on some legit play makers.

Really so trading back from three to six still getting the guy they wanted in Nelson plus landing the pick that turned into Smith didn’t work out?

 

and trading back with Washington and using that pick to land Pittman didn’t work out?  
 

Trading back with Minnesota and using a pick acquired in that trade to land Raimann didn’t work out?  Interesting take…

[jvan1973]

5 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Chances are just that chance.  It can be 10 fold or 20 fold but there is not 100% certainty with any draft pick even the first pick.  But there is 100% certainty when you trade for a proven elite player who has already proven his elite capabilities in the league.  I don’t know why you’re bringing up trading down. That was never part of my comment.

There isn't a 100% certainty with trading for elite talent.   Also,  most teams don't trade away cheap talent for a single mid first round player.   Then the team getting the elite player has to sign them to a huge contract.   So trade away multiple picks and sign them to a huge contract.   I'm not saying it can't happen,  but I think Ballard stays at 15.  He may move up or down a few picks,  but I don't see him trading for an established vet.

[GoColts8818]

19 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Chances are just that chance.  It can be 10 fold or 20 fold but there is not 100% certainty with any draft pick even the first pick.  But there is 100% certainty when you trade for a proven elite player who has already proven his elite capabilities in the league.  I don’t know why you’re bringing up trading down. That was never part of my comment.

Ask the Broncos about that after trading Russell Wilson or the Jets for trading for La’Von Bell or the Raiders trading for Randy Moss.  
 

trades are not 100% certain either.

[chad72]

24 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Chances are just that chance.  It can be 10 fold or 20 fold but there is not 100% certainty with any draft pick even the first pick.  But there is 100% certainty when you trade for a proven elite player who has already proven his elite capabilities in the league.  I don’t know why you’re bringing up trading down. That was never part of my comment.

 

If you are going for an established player, try your best to do it in free agency so that high draft picks are not ponied up and you can continue the building through the draft for the pipeline. But if you are going to take on the contract of an established player, say Tyler Lockett, try giving up a Day 3 pick at best, like a 5th rounder.

 

Buckner was an exceptional case of a DT in his prime being offered for a trade because both their first round draft picks Buckner (2016 first rounder) and Armstead (2015 first rounder) turned out to be very good for them and were ready to be re-signed.

[GoColts8818]

20 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

There isn't a 100% certainty with trading for elite talent.   Also,  most teams don't trade away cheap talent for a single mid first round player.   Then the team getting the elite player has to sign them to a huge contract.   So trade away multiple picks and sign them to a huge contract.   I'm not saying it can't happen,  but I think Ballard stays at 15.  He may move up or down a few picks,  but I don't see him trading for an established vet.

I know Ballard struck gold with Buckner and that was a trade but that was really a perfect storm for both teams that rarely happens.

 

i won’t close the door on a trade for a player or up or down because it would be foolish to do that this early this off-season. However, I think a trade for a player is unlikely.

[richard pallo]

7 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

There isn't a 100% certainty with trading for elite talent.   Also,  most teams don't trade away cheap talent for a single mid first round player.   Then the team getting the elite player has to sign them to a huge contract.   So trade away multiple picks and sign them to a huge contract.   I'm not saying it can't happen,  but I think Ballard stays at 15.  He may move up or down a few picks,  but I don't see him trading for an established vet.

There is 100% certainty when trading for elite talent.  Who cares who if you have to sign him to a new contract.  That’s not part of the argument.  That happens all the time.  We did it with Buckner.  You trade for an elite player that’s what you’re getting.  

 

2 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Ask the Broncos about that after trading Russell Wilson or the Jets for trading for La’Von Bell or the Raiders trading for Randy Moss.  
 

trades are not 100% certain either.

I don’t think those players were considered elite when they were traded. They were past their elite years and they were bringing other personal problems with them.  They were considered good players who could still produce but that’s about it.  Diggs and Buckner were considered elite at the time of their trade though.  Now injuries could always affect the outcome of a trade but you can’t predict injuries.  Rodgers is a good example of that circumstance.  Sometimes teams are forced to move players because they are literately forced to because of cap restraints.  That happens all the time too.  That’s what the Colts should ideally be looking for.

[jvan1973]

17 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

There is 100% certainty when trading for elite talent.  Who cares who if you have to sign him to a new contract.  That’s not part of the argument.  That happens all the time.  We did it with Buckner.  You trade for an elite player that’s what you’re getting.  

 

I don’t think those players were considered elite when they were traded. They were past their elite years and they were bringing other personal problems with them.  They were considered good players who could still produce but that’s about it.  Diggs and Buckner were considered elite at the time of their trade though.  Now injuries could always affect the outcome of a trade but you can’t predict injuries.  Rodgers is a good example of that circumstance.  Sometimes teams are forced to move players because they are literately forced to because of cap restraints.  That happens all the time too.  That’s what the Colts should ideally be looking for.

There is not 100% certainty on anything,  certainty not how a player will perform with a new team.   There are lots of examples.   Haynesworth wasn't a trade,  but a great example of a once great player not coming close to expectations with Washington.   How do you think the browns feel about that Watson trade?  100% certainty doesn't exist anywhere in life

[jvan1973]

33 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

I know Ballard struck gold with Buckner and that was a trade but that was really a perfect storm for both teams that rarely happens.

 

i won’t close the door on a trade for a player or up or down because it would be foolish to do that this early this off-season. However, I think a trade for a player is unlikely.

RP does this to himself every offseason.   He predicts big block buster trades or free agent signings.  It never happens,  but he enjoys the fact it could happen