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

[DougDew]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So is there a case to be made that there's a player worth moving up from #15 in this year's draft?

 

Without parsing this to death, I mostly agree with the bolded. But how I see it, the top 14 picks will include at least 3 QBs, at least 3 WRs, probably 2 edge/DEs, probably 2 DTs, 2 OTs, and probably the top TE.

 

So you can get the 4th best WR at #15, vs going up to #7 for probably the 2nd or 3rd best WR. Is there a bright line of separation there? Third best edge, third best OT... maybe Bowers falls... 

 

I think you can let the draft fall however it falls, and you'll still be able to choose between 5-7 "elite" prospects at multiple positions with #15. Which is why trading up to get an elite prospect is not compelling to me, this year. 

 

 

And moving from 3# to #6 is a completely different situation. You're still firmly in "elite prospect" territory.

What I'm reading after 37 pages, is that folks think that Nabers, MHJ, Bowers, Latu, and Turner strike that bright line.  That's 5 players after 3 QBs, with some question if there will be a 4th QB in there. 

 

To miss out on one of those players who might fall to 8 or 9, just to save a pick to take another Dayo or JuJu. (or even Pittman) with a later pick.  would seem to have wasted the 15th position, IMO.

 

Not saying those players are elite.  But they seem to stand out from the rest in a lot of folks eyes. 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So is there a case to be made that there's a player worth moving up from #15 in this year's draft?

 

Without parsing this to death, I mostly agree with the bolded. But how I see it, the top 14 picks will include at least 3 QBs, at least 3 WRs, probably 2 edge/DEs, probably 2 DTs, 2 OTs, and probably the top TE.

 

So you can get the 4th best WR at #15, vs going up to #7 for probably the 2nd or 3rd best WR. Is there a bright line of separation there? Third best edge, third best OT... maybe Bowers falls... 

 

I think you can let the draft fall however it falls, and you'll still be able to choose between 5-7 "elite" prospects at multiple positions with #15. Which is why trading up to get an elite prospect is not compelling to me, this year. 

Did you forget CBs in your list of players taken in first 14 draft picks?

 

Anyway, agreed overall, especially in this draft class. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

Did you forget CBs in your list of players taken in first 14 draft picks?

 

Anyway, agreed overall, especially in this draft class. 

 

I think it's a toss up whether a CB goes in the top 14, but yeah there's a possibility. 

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

What I'm reading after 37 pages, is that folks think that Nabers, MJH, Bowers, Latu, and Turner strike that bright line.  That's 5 players after 3 QBs, with some question if there will be a 4th QB in there. 

 

To miss out on one of those players who falls to 10, just to save a pick to take another Dayo or JuJu. etc.  would seem to have wasted the 15th position.

 

Not saying those players are elite.  But they seem to stand out from the rest in a lot of folks eyes. 

 

I don't treat these 37 pages as the definitive guide for which prospects are "elite." I'd add another 5-8 to that list, including some at positions that other people don't think should be in play for the Colts this year. 

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't treat these 37 pages as the definitive guide for which prospects are "elite." I'd add another 5-8 to that list, including some at positions that other people don't think should be in play for the Colts this year. 

That's fine.  This is for discussion purposes, and I'm not advocating anything.  Its just that if some are in love with the idea of getting one of those players...any player, I'd think its logical to argue giving up pick 46 to get that guy at 8 or 9.

 

Adding another talent at pick 46 does this team little good.  The roster is already bursting at the seems with those guys.  JMO.

 

Said a different way.  If Ballard gave up pick 46 to move to 8 to take Nabers, Turner, or Bowers, how many would hate that move?

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

That's fine.  This is for discussion purposes, and I'm not advocating anything.  Its just that if some are in love with the idea of getting one of those players...any player, I'd think its logical to argue giving up pick 46 to get that guy at 8 or 9.

 

Adding another talent at pick 46 does this team little good.  The roster is already bursting at the seems with those guys.  JMO.

 

Which takes me back to my earlier question: Is there a case to be made for trading up for any specific prospect? I'd love to see the case made, rather than a hypothetical 'we should move up for an elite prospect and if we don't it's a waste,' when there isn't actually a player you have in mind.

 

I don't agree with the second paragraph at all. 

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Which takes me back to my earlier question: Is there a case to be made for trading up for any specific prospect? I'd love to see the case made, rather than a hypothetical 'we should move up for an elite prospect and if we don't it's a waste,' when there isn't actually a player you have in mind.

 

I don't agree with the second paragraph at all. 

I edited my comment above.

 

Said a different way.  On draft day, if Ballard gave up pick 46 to move to 8 to take Nabers, Turner, or Bowers, how many would hate that move?

[KB]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't treat these 37 pages as the definitive guide for which prospects are "elite." I'd add another 5-8 to that list, including some at positions that other people don't think should be in play for the Colts this year. 

Just wondering, which prospects do you see as elite at a position we arnt looking at? I think Powers-Johnson is one but taking a center that high makes little sense.

[smittywerb]

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

Also, my trade of 46 and 15 to 7 was just an example.   We could give up less than pick 46 to move up fewer slots.  So Turner possibly falling to 11 would be an even better value, if we're interested in Turner.

if we trade up, I definitely think our next pick should be a WR.  I think we’d be missing out if we have to pick a player outside of the Worthy/Leggette-tier of WRs.  Sucks because if we go DE and WR we’d miss out on a talented CB (maybe, what if a player like cooper dejean slides?) but I’d be ok with looking at FA to grab a CB1 caliber player.  A vet DE and WR, we’d have to pay them +$20million vs a vet CB we can get away with $20-$15 million.  

[NewColtsFan]

30 minutes ago, DougDew said:

He said, "we did not wan to trade back so far as to not get one of the elite players".  There was also some question as to how far Nelson would drop if the Colts did not take him.  

 

If Ballard was focused on Nelson exclusively, he would have had no problems saying that after he picked him.  Its management 101 to pump up the player after he's picked...like he said that AR was his target all along.  If he can say it about AR, he would have said it about Nelson.

 

Edit:  Not to argue about 2018.  My point is that his statement certainly applies to 2024.  The Colts don't really have a "need" other than S.  But they do need an elite player at any one of about 6 or 7 positions.  Trading up to be in a position to get one, any one of 6 positions, seems like a good move, IMO.

Doug….   It doesn’t matter what I say or you say.   What does matter is what Chris Ballard says.   
 

Go to YouTube.    Look up “Chris Ballard, Frank Reich talk Quenton Nelson pick”

Ballard says he was willing to lose Nelson moving back from 3 to 6.  There were still premium players like Bradley Chubb still available.   But he was NOT willing to move back again, because the guy he wanted all along was Nelson and he wasn’t going to risk losing him.   That’s not a word for word transcription, but it’s close.   It’s there for you to see.   
 

 

[wig]

54 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

And that's the major point, IMO.

 

Let's say the target is Nabers at #7. Is he that much more likely to be a "difference maker" than BTJ or AD Mitchell, who will probably be available at #15 (and likely well beyond)? There's little question that he's the better prospect, but is it worth the premium to move up in the draft for him? Especially when we see 2nd and 3rd round WRs produce right away all the time. 

 

Or let's say the target is Joe Alt. Is he that much better than Fashanu, Latham, etc? 

 

Maybe if they really love Dallas Turner, they see him as the guy that's much better for the defense than Latu, Verse, Chop Robinson... but going up to #7 seems like overkill for him. And again, I think it's questionable if he's that much more likely to be a "difference maker" than the other edge prospects. 

 

Not to mention comparisons across positions. Is Nabers so valuable to us that he's worth giving up extra draft capital, when we'll likely be able to choose from lots of those other prospects above? 

 

Based on how I see this year's draft, the only reason I think a team should move up is if they want a QB. That's the only scenario in which I think it's worth the premium.

 

You're discounting the gap between the top 3 and the rest. Nabers or Odunze are WR1 in most drafts. They're 3 of the top 10 WRs this decade

[Superman]

24 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I edited my comment above.

 

Said a different way.  If Ballard gave up pick 46 to move to 8 to take Nabers, Turner, or Bowers, how many would hate that move?

 

I'd be torn doing this for Nabers. I think there's a chance he's the best WR in this class (not a knock on anyone else, MHJ is really good, Odunze is really good), so I'd love to have him. But when high level WR talent is available all throughout the draft, it's probably not the best use of resources from a value standpoint.

 

Last year, the top five WRs in receiving yards included two fifth rounders (Hill, Nacua), a fourth rounder (St. Brown), a second rounder (AJ Brown), and one first rounder (CeeDee Lamb, who was picked at #17). How greatly are you increasing the odds of getting a "difference maker" at WR by going up to the top ten, vs staying at #15. I think it's minimal, at best.

 

Personally, I would not like a move up for Turner or especially Bowers. Others probably see that differently.

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Doug….   It doesn’t matter what I say or you say.   What does matter is what Chris Ballard says.   
 

Go to YouTube.    Look up “Chris Ballard, Frank Reich talk Quenton Nelson pick”

Ballard says he was willing to lose Nelson moving back from 3 to 6.  There were still premium players like Bradley Chubb still available.   But he was NOT willing to move back again, because the guy he wanted all along was Nelson and he wasn’t going to risk losing him.   That’s not a word for word transcription, but it’s close.   It’s there for you to see.   
 

 

I anticipated this response, so I edited my comment to reflect the point of me bringing it up.

 

Edit:  Not to argue about 2018.  My point is that those words :we did not want to (miss out) on one of the elite players)  certainly applies to 2024.  The Colts don't really have a "need" other than S.  But they do need an elite player at any one of about 6 or 7 positions.  Trading up to be in a position to get one, any one of 6 positions, seems like an arguably good move, IMO.

 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, wig said:

You're discounting the gap between the top 3 and the rest. Nabers or Odunze are WR1 in most drafts. They're 3 of the top 10 WRs this decade

 

I don't mean to discount it, I'm happy to talk it out. I think all three are great prospects, but I find the bolded to be a draft season exaggeration. Setting that aside, which of them is worth the premium of moving up from #15, vs taking the best WR prospect that's still available? 

[richard pallo]

2 hours ago, 1959Colts said:

Will be interesting to see if the colts will be attending this workout?

 

I think they will be there.  He strikes me as a Ballard type of pick.  High Ras score I’m assuming after he tests.  Supposedly very athletic.  Can play multiple positions at a high level.  Would be our kick returner too day one.  He took Malik Hooker at 15 so I could see him taking Cooper there as well.  I could see him moving up into the middle of the 1st round after his workout.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The Colts don't really have a "need" other than S.  But they do need an elite player at any one of about 6 or 7 positions.  Trading up to be in a position to get one, any one of 6 positions, seems like an arguably good move, IMO.

 

My point is that I think we can get an "elite" player at one of those 6 or 7 positions even if we stay at #15. I think that's particularly true in this year's draft, which is top heavy with QBs, WRs, and OTs. 

[wig]

Just now, Superman said:

 

I don't mean to discount it, I'm happy to talk it out. I think all three are great prospects, but I find the bolded to be a draft season exaggeration. Setting that aside, which of them is worth the premium of moving up from #15, vs taking the best WR prospect that's still available? 

 

In my opinion, all 3 are worth it but only Odunze is likely realistic for only adding 46.  I personally don't think it's an exaggeration and have heard a similar stat on a pff podcast

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, KB said:

Just wondering, which prospects do you see as elite at a position we arnt looking at? I think Powers-Johnson is one but taking a center that high makes little sense.

 

Specifically at OT, there's a chance Latham and Fuaga are there. And at DT, Murphy and Newton. I think there are people on this site who would throw up if we picked an edge, but out of Turner, Verse, Latu, and Robinson, 2-3 of them should still be in play.

[wig]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Specifically at OT, there's a chance Latham and Fuaga are there. And at DT, Murphy and Newton. I think there are people on this site who would throw up if we picked an edge, but out of Turner, Verse, Latu, and Robinson, 2-3 of them should still be in play.

 

I think if we stay at 15 and Mitchell and Brock are gone, edge makes the most sense. With Latu being my favorite by far

[Dobbinblitz]

15 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Remember….   Sports Illustrated isn’t what it once was and hasn’t been for a very long time.    

Just saying…..

Yep. I agree. I don't think SI is the definitive source for much of anything, I did think, if that is the outcome of a trade back scenario, it would be a good one for the Colts and worth doing.

Personally. I hope the Colts keep the pick and draft a potentially pro-bowl caliber player. I think there is a real possibility  to draft a premier talent with up to 4 QB's off the board before the Colts pick.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, wig said:

 

In my opinion, all 3 are worth it but only Odunze is likely realistic for only adding 46.  I personally don't think it's an exaggeration and have heard a similar stat on a pff podcast

 

I think it's a really good draft class. You wrote that they're 3 of the top ten of this decade, and I probably translated that as 'of the last ten years,' which is different. In general, I think every draft class gets overhyped in the moment, and that's probably true of this year, but I don't have a strong disagreement with your earlier statement.

 

How much separation do you see between Odunze and the next group of BTJ/Mitchell? 

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

My point is that I think we can get an "elite" player at one of those 6 or 7 positions even if we stay at #15. I think that's particularly true in this year's draft, which is top heavy with QBs, WRs, and OTs. 

Yes.  The basis of my discussion was the idea that there is a bright line between elite prospects and very good prospects somewhere around 8 to 11.

 

[wig]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I think it's a really good draft class. You wrote that they're 3 of the top ten of this decade, and I probably translated that as 'of the last ten years,' which is different. In general, I think every draft class gets overhyped in the moment, and that's probably true of this year, but I don't have a strong disagreement with your earlier statement.

 

How much separation do you see between Odunze and the next group of BTJ/Mitchell? 

 

Overhyping does happen for sure. But we're talking about 3 guys that have averaged over 1300 yards for two seasons against big time competition. They are DUDES.  I think the gap between 3 and 4 is about the same as 4 and 15. And I want a difference maker in this draft. One of those 3, Bowers or Mitchell 

[Superman]

Just now, DougDew said:

Yes.  The basis of my discussion was the idea that there is a bright line between elite prospects and very good prospects somewhere around 8 to 11.

 

I guess I'm missing something. Do you believe that we can get an "elite" prospect -- a potential difference maker -- at one of 6-7 positions if we stay at #15? 

[shasta519]

59 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So is there a case to be made that there's a player worth moving up from #15 in this year's draft?

 

Without parsing this to death, I mostly agree with the bolded. But how I see it, the top 14 picks will include at least 3 QBs, at least 3 WRs, probably 2 edge/DEs, probably 2 DTs, 2 OTs, and probably the top TE.

 

So you can get the 4th best WR at #15, vs going up to #7 for probably the 2nd or 3rd best WR. Is there a bright line of separation there? Third best edge, third best OT... maybe Bowers falls... 

 

I think you can let the draft fall however it falls, and you'll still be able to choose between 5-7 "elite" prospects at multiple positions with #15. Which is why trading up to get an elite prospect is not compelling to me, this year. 

 

 

And moving from 3# to #6 is a completely different situation. You're still firmly in "elite prospect" territory.

 

I think there's a pretty big gap between the 4th best WR and the 2nd/3rd best. That trio of MHJ, Nabers and Odunze are likely top 5 picks in any draft. So to be able to move up from #15 to #7 and get one of them is probably worth it. The problem is I don't think anybody is trading back for the same reasons. Where's the value in moving down to #15?

[wig]

Let's not forget about positional value, fit and AR's development as well. I'm really high on Bowers because of YAC. I'm high on Odunze and Nabers because they are deep ball monsters without being one dimensional. 

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, wig said:

 

Overhyping does happen for sure. But we're talking about 3 guys that have averaged over 1300 yards for two seasons against big time competition. They are DUDES.  I think the gap between 3 and 4 is about the same as 4 and 15. And I want a difference maker in this draft. One of those 3, Bowers or Mitchell 

 

Yeah, that's the fundamental difference here. If I agreed, then moving up from #15 would be compelling to me. 

 

But if you want Bowers or Mitchell, there's a strong chance that one or both of them are available at #15 anyway, which is the second part of my argument. Even if you think there's a big separation between WR3 and WR4, there are still "elite" prospects at other positions that will be available without trading up. So if you want a difference maker, you're likely to get one at #15, even if it's not at one specific position.

 

@shasta519 I think this addresses your point also.

 

[wig]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, that's the fundamental difference here. If I agreed, then moving up from #15 would be compelling to me. 

 

But if you want Bowers or Mitchell, there's a strong chance that one or both of them are available at #15 anyway, which is the second part of my argument. Even if you think there's a big separation between WR3 and WR4, there are still "elite" prospects at other positions that will be available without trading up. So if you want a difference maker, you're likely to get one at #15, even if it's not at one specific position.

 

I don't doubt that we can get a nice player at 15. But I personally REALLY want an offensive weapon there. 

[KB]

21 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Specifically at OT, there's a chance Latham and Fuaga are there. And at DT, Murphy and Newton. I think there are people on this site who would throw up if we picked an edge, but out of Turner, Verse, Latu, and Robinson, 2-3 of them should still be in play.

I agree with most of these, but I don't think they're off the table aside from tackle. I think DE could be likely. The LEO position is what throws me off and puts Turner and Robinson in position. I personally don't see Chop as elite and think we can grab him in the second. His speed as a LEO is tantalizing. 

[Superman]

Just now, KB said:

I agree with most of these, but I don't think they're off the table aside from tackle. I think DE could be likely. The LEO position is what throws me off and puts Turner and Robinson in position. I personally don't see Chop as elite and think we can grab him in the second. His speed as a LEO is tantalizing. 

 

I don't think they're off the table either. I just think most people are locked in on either CB or WR. I think DT/DE is probably more likely if we stay at #15.

[shasta519]

7 minutes ago, wig said:

 

Overhyping does happen for sure. But we're talking about 3 guys that have averaged over 1300 yards for two seasons against big time competition. They are DUDES.  I think the gap between 3 and 4 is about the same as 4 and 15. And I want a difference maker in this draft. One of those 3, Bowers or Mitchell 

 

Agree. Not even sure if these WRs are being overhyped. MHJ has been seen as a generational WR for two years. Nabers might actually be better...and Odunze is a beast. We could see WR go 4-6 for the first time in history, but they would probably all go top 5 if there weren't 3 QBs locked in at 1-3.

 

I think if a team could trade up and get one, they won't miss that draft capital at all. But I also don't think we see any team eyeing one of them is trading back to take their chances on the second tier. It would have to be a stupid haul (like a team trading up for a QB would pay) and Ballard likely doesn't entertain it, so it's sort of moot.

 

If the big 3 WRs, Bowers, Turner and Verse are all gone, Ballard likely trades back. This would be a great draft to need an OT, but the Colts don't really need one, so I could see Ballard parlaying one that falls into an extra pick or two. 

[wig]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think they're off the table either. I just think most people are locked in on either CB or WR. I think DT/DE is probably more likely if we stay at #15.

 

Here's where we agree. If we stay at 15 and Mitchell is there, let's do it. I don't want any WR or CB outside of him at 15, and if the board falls as projected, DE all day

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, wig said:

Let's not forget about positional value, fit and AR's development as well. I'm really high on Bowers because of YAC. I'm high on Odunze and Nabers because they are deep ball monsters without being one dimensional. 

 

This is a good point, and would be very important for Richardson. It's also where I see BTJ being in play. He's not as polished as the others in the intermediate stuff, but I think the potential is obviously there for him to be really good route runner and go-to possession guy when necessary. And he's already a red zone monster.

[stitches]

33 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Specifically at OT, there's a chance Latham and Fuaga are there. And at DT, Murphy and Newton. I think there are people on this site who would throw up if we picked an edge, but out of Turner, Verse, Latu, and Robinson, 2-3 of them should still be in play.

How sure are we Ballard wouldn't draft an OT at 15 if he really likes one of them? I kind of cannot exclude the possibility of any of this happening. I think people are still preoccupied with the idea of drafting for need, when Ballard has shown in the past that if he sees value he will draft at positions we don't have big immediate needs at. For example, lets assume Fuaga is there and Ballard thinks he will be amazing OT... while we are paying big bucks for Braden Smith. Maybe he decides he wants to prepare a move away from Smith in the next year or two... and in the meantime he strengthens the line as a whole by adding another high level talent who can play both RT and possibly RG... 

[shasta519]

37 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Specifically at OT, there's a chance Latham and Fuaga are there. And at DT, Murphy and Newton. I think there are people on this site who would throw up if we picked an edge, but out of Turner, Verse, Latu, and Robinson, 2-3 of them should still be in play.

 

This is so true. But it's actually the smart play if one of Turner or Verse falls. Turner is a pipe dream though. With Paye and Dayo only having one year until they need new deals, they will likely need a replacement for one of them. I don't see Ballard keeping both and that R1 ER can make a situational impact this year (which is probably the most we can hope of a pick at #15 that isn't a CB or Bowers, who probably isn't there).

 

Murphy would also make a lot of sense because we don't know if they are going to pay DeFo the monster contract he will demand after this year. But they did just sign multiple DTs in FA, so the immediate impact wouldn't be there.

 

 

[shasta519]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

How sure are we Ballard wouldn't draft an OT at 15 if he really likes one of them? I kind of cannot exclude the possibility of any of this happening. I think people are still preoccupied with the idea of drafting for need, when Ballard has shown in the past that if he sees value he will draft at positions we don't have big immediate needs at. For example, lets assume Fuaga is there and Ballard thinks he will be amazing OT... while we are paying big bucks for Braden Smith. Maybe he decides he wants to prepare a move away from Smith in the next year or two... and in the meantime he strengthens the line as a whole by adding another high level talent who can play both RT and possibly RG... 

 

I could see it. Smith's contract and injury situation might make him a release candidate. And this would give the OT one year to develop before taking over. 

 

But I also could see Ballard taking advantage of a OT-needy team moving back a bit and getting some Day 2 capital. 

[wig]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is a good point, and would be very important for Richardson. It's also where I see BTJ being in play. He's not as polished as the others in the intermediate stuff, but I think the potential is obviously there for him to be really good route runner and go-to possession guy when necessary. And he's already a red zone monster.

 

If I thought what you did about BTJ, sure.  But I see more Stephen Hill than elite talent

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

How sure are we Ballard wouldn't draft an OT at 15 if he really likes one of them? I kind of cannot exclude the possibility of any of this happening. I think people are still preoccupied with the idea of drafting for need, when Ballard has shown in the past that if he sees value he will draft at positions we don't have big immediate needs at. For example, lets assume Fuaga is there and Ballard thinks he will be amazing OT... while we are paying big bucks for Braden Smith. Maybe he decides he wants to prepare a move away from Smith in the next year or two... and in the meantime he strengthens the line as a whole by adding another high level talent who can play both RT and possibly RG... 

 

Yeah, don't misunderstand me. I don't think any of this is off the table for Ballard. I think a lot of people think it MUST be CB/WR at #15, and I think they're probably setting themselves up for disappointment. 

[shasta519]

51 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I think they will be there.  He strikes me as a Ballard type of pick.  High Ras score I’m assuming after he tests.  Supposedly very athletic.  Can play multiple positions at a high level.  Would be our kick returner too day one.  He took Malik Hooker at 15 so I could see him taking Cooper there as well.  I could see him moving up into the middle of the 1st round after his workout.

 

He took Hooker all the way back in 2017. The S position has really become devalued since then. It would depend on how they project Dejean. If it's as a S long-term, then I bet he's more of a trade-back or R2 player on their board than a mid-R1 pick. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, wig said:

 

If I thought what you did about BTJ, sure.  But I see more Stephen Hill than elite talent

 

Ew.