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

[stitches]

3 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

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. 

I wasn't thinking about releasing him. I think he has value on his contract, He's one of the best RTs in the league. But still ... he has contract for this year and next. After that ... if we are preparing to pay our LT(Raimann) and our QB(if AR pans out), we might need to make some sacrifices with some top of the roster players. Or we might trade Braden Smith if we get a good offer...  

 

3 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

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

Yep! That's IMO the most likely scenario. If I had to bet right now on any position or trade back, I'd bet Ballard is going to trade back. 

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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. 

I think the most likely is neither CB, nor WR at 15. IMO the most likely is still trading back... 

[smittywerb]

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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? 

I’d say no.

 

theres Nabers, Odunze, and MHJ who id considered elite (imo, I think Nabers and MHJ are the only 2 worth trading up for)

 

then there’s BTJ who I’d considered fringe elite (I think he’s a good possibility to be available at 15)

 

then there is the worthy, leggette, Mitchell tier who are very good.  Could be developed a little bit more (if we go DE or CB with the first pick, I hope to grab one of these players in the second)

 

then there’s everyone else.

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

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.

 

Agreed. But if one of your conditions as a fan is that our pick at #15 has be a Day 1 starter and a potential ROY candidate, then it's hard to look past the biggest perceived needs. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, smittywerb said:

I’d say no.

 

theres Nabers, Odunze, and MHJ who id considered elite (imo, I think Nabers and MHJ are the only 2 worth trading up for)

 

then there’s BTJ who I’d considered fringe elite (I think he’s a good possibility to be available at 15)

 

then there is the worthy, leggette, Mitchell tier who are very good.  Could be developed a little bit more (if we go DE or CB with the first pick, I hope to grab one of these players in the second)

 

then there’s everyone else.

 

It seems like you're excluding prospects at other positions because you don't want those positions in the first round.

[DougDew]

53 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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? 

For certain positions in those 6-7, I think it would be best to trade down to get that difference maker (corner in a zone based defense for example).  Yes, we could get a difference making corner at 15, but why pick him there if he can be picked at 25. 

 

But for WR#1 or EDGE, or the next Travis Kelce, pick 15 is probably too low.  It is most years, and this year is probably no different, unless there is another WR that has it all like MHJ and Nabers.  Seems like all others have some flaws.  Again, do you settle for Leggette or Odunze at 15 over Nabers at 8 because of the player you would draft at 46?  

 

The fact that its a deep WR class is not relevant, IMO.  I don't care how many Pittman's or AP's there are.  I just care about the talent at the very top, because that's what the Colts need.  And this year, we are within striking distance.  Same with EDGE and the next Kelce. 

 

We're talking prospects, in the way that they are evaluated,  Sure, guys bust.  And some do better.  The fact that Puca becomes a star is not relevant...his success does not change how you approach the next draft.  If another WR has the exact same metrics this year as Puca did coming out of college, that WR is still not going to get drafted before round 3.  The next OT with Raimann's college draft profile probably would not get drafted in round 1.  I doubt that Puca or Raimann's success changes how evaluators think about prospects all that much.

 

[richard pallo]

8 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

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. 

I think they will view him as a corner and he would be our new punt returner as well.  If he has a great workout on April 8th as I’m expecting I can see him as our pick at 15.  If Bowers is at 15 or the top ER then I think they would get the nod but I don’t see that happening.  I don’t see WR either because I think the top three will be gone and I don’t see Ballard giving up on Pierce so soon without seeing him really play with AR.  So no receiver in round 1.  So for me today April 2nd my guess at pick 15 is Cooper Dejean.

[wig]

26 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Ew. 

 

Exactly. If it's not the top 3 for WR, I'd rather wait for a YAC guy like Corley..  

[DougDew]

30 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... 

Exactly.  I think OT is on the table, but not necessarily at 15.  And a lot of folks would throw a fit.  Its a very good class.  First round talent throughout.  This is where I could see a trade down to pick a OT.  Feel the same about Corner.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

For certain positions in those 6-7, I think it would be best to trade down to get that difference maker (corner in a zone based defense for example).  Yes, we could get a difference making corner at 15, but why pick him there if he can be picked at 25. 

 

But for WR#1 or EDGE, or the next Travis Kelce, pick 15 is probably too low.  It is most years, and this year is probably no different.   Unless there is another WR that has it all like MHJ and Nabers.  Seems like all others have some flaws.  Again, do you settle for Leggette or Odunze at 15 over Nabers at 8 because of the player you would draft at 46?  

 

The fact that its a deep WR class is not relevant, IMO.  I don't care how many Pittman's or AP's there are.  I just care about the talent at the very top, because that's what the Colts need.  Same with EDGE and the next Kelce. 

 

We're talking prospects, in the way that they are evaluated,  Sure, guys bust.  And some do better.  The fact that Puca becomes a star is not relevant...his success does not change how you approach the next draft.  If another WR has the exact same metrics this year as Puca did coming out of college, that WR is still not going to get drafted before round 3.  The next OT with Raimann's college draft profile probably would not get drafted in round 1.  I doubt that Puca or Raimann's success changes how evaluators think about prospects all that much.

 

Don't want to get into the weeds on all these prospects, but I will say that Odunze at #15 would be a steal, not settling. If we got Odunze at #15, that's a far better outcome than trading up for Nabers or MHJ. 

 

Quote

I doubt that Puca or Raimann's success changes how evaluators think about prospects all that much.

 

I disagree. I think it does, and already has in a lot of cases. If QB is the ultimate force multiplier, than is the difference between an elite WR prospect and a pretty good WR prospect all that pronounced? The Chiefs appear to have adjusted their way of valuing the WR position, primarily because they have Patrick Mahomes and Andy Reid.

 

Other teams have done the same, and we see really good WR prospects on Day 2 every year, having success in the NFL. Which speaks to why the top five yardage guys from 2023 only includes one first rounder. The same is true of 2022, and 2021, and 2020... At WR, there is a clear and established trend showing that high producing players are found in later rounds just as much as they're found at the top of the first round.

 

Your post suggests that you have made a similar adjustment to the way you value corners in a zone based defense. This is how you find value.

 

'Just caring about the talent at the very top' seems incredibly dismissive of what we know about the draft. 'The talent at the very top' busts at about a 50% rate, and elite playmakers come from all spots in the draft, at every position. Zeroing in on the top 10-15 prospects in any given draft is mathematically imprudent. In fact, the teams that seem to do better in the draft -- and the difference between the most successful drafters and the average drafters is pretty marginal, over a substantial period of time -- are generally teams that pick in the back half of the first round, or who hit on Day 2.

 

"The next Kelce" is particularly dissonant to me, since not only was Kelce a third rounder, but the top TEs historically are not high first rounders. The next Kelce is probably going to be someone who gets drafted on Day 2 and then takes off in his second year. 

[shasta519]

31 minutes ago, stitches said:

I wasn't thinking about releasing him. I think he has value on his contract, He's one of the best RTs in the league. But still ... he has contract for this year and next. After that ... if we are preparing to pay our LT(Raimann) and our QB(if AR pans out), we might need to make some sacrifices with some top of the roster players. Or we might trade Braden Smith if we get a good offer...  

 

Yep! That's IMO the most likely scenario. If I had to bet right now on any position or trade back, I'd bet Ballard is going to trade back. 

I think the most likely is neither CB, nor WR at 15. IMO the most likely is still trading back... 

 

I don't think they release him necessarily, but they save $16M in cap prior to next season. If there is an OT ready to take over, it might make sense to explore it (if he gets hurt again) or maybe a trade (if he doesn't). I don't see Ballard giving him a 3rd contract if they plan to pay Raimann, so OT is probably coming via the draft this year or next.

[jvan1973]

30 minutes ago, DougDew said:

For certain positions in those 6-7, I think it would be best to trade down to get that difference maker (corner in a zone based defense for example).  Yes, we could get a difference making corner at 15, but why pick him there if he can be picked at 25. 

 

But for WR#1 or EDGE, or the next Travis Kelce, pick 15 is probably too low.  It is most years, and this year is probably no different, unless there is another WR that has it all like MHJ and Nabers.  Seems like all others have some flaws.  Again, do you settle for Leggette or Odunze at 15 over Nabers at 8 because of the player you would draft at 46?  

 

The fact that its a deep WR class is not relevant, IMO.  I don't care how many Pittman's or AP's there are.  I just care about the talent at the very top, because that's what the Colts need.  And this year, we are within striking distance.  Same with EDGE and the next Kelce. 

 

We're talking prospects, in the way that they are evaluated,  Sure, guys bust.  And some do better.  The fact that Puca becomes a star is not relevant...his success does not change how you approach the next draft.  If another WR has the exact same metrics this year as Puca did coming out of college, that WR is still not going to get drafted before round 3.  The next OT with Raimann's college draft profile probably would not get drafted in round 1.  I doubt that Puca or Raimann's success changes how evaluators think about prospects all that much.

 

Travis Kelce was a 3rd rounder

[shasta519]

17 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I think they will view him as a corner and he would be our new punt returner as well.  If he has a great workout on April 8th as I’m expecting I can see him as our pick at 15.  If Bowers is at 15 or the top ER then I think they would get the nod but I don’t see that happening.  I don’t see WR either because I think the top three will be gone and I don’t see Ballard giving up on Pierce so soon without seeing him really play with AR.  So no receiver in round 1.  So for me today April 2nd my guess at pick 15 is Cooper Dejean.

 

I think he's a R2 pick because he ends up at S, but we will just have to see. We also haven't seen Ballard draft a CB in R1 either. So even if he projects Dejean as a CB, it might not be that early. This is a fun draft cause it really could be a lot of different players he is targeting.

[shasta519]

33 minutes ago, DougDew said:

For certain positions in those 6-7, I think it would be best to trade down to get that difference maker (corner in a zone based defense for example).  Yes, we could get a difference making corner at 15, but why pick him there if he can be picked at 25. 

 

But for WR#1 or EDGE, or the next Travis Kelce, pick 15 is probably too low.  It is most years, and this year is probably no different, unless there is another WR that has it all like MHJ and Nabers.  Seems like all others have some flaws.  Again, do you settle for Leggette or Odunze at 15 over Nabers at 8 because of the player you would draft at 46?  

 

The fact that its a deep WR class is not relevant, IMO.  I don't care how many Pittman's or AP's there are.  I just care about the talent at the very top, because that's what the Colts need.  And this year, we are within striking distance.  Same with EDGE and the next Kelce. 

 

We're talking prospects, in the way that they are evaluated,  Sure, guys bust.  And some do better.  The fact that Puca becomes a star is not relevant...his success does not change how you approach the next draft.  If another WR has the exact same metrics this year as Puca did coming out of college, that WR is still not going to get drafted before round 3.  The next OT with Raimann's college draft profile probably would not get drafted in round 1.  I doubt that Puca or Raimann's success changes how evaluators think about prospects all that much.

 

 

Raimann was a 25 year-old rookie.

 

IMO, even with OL players tending to have longer careers than other positions, that type of prospect will likely never get drafted in R1 because teams place so much value on age when drafting early, due to the assumed upside with technical and physical development and being further away from age-based regression.

 

The Colts were actually bottom 5 in average age drafting from RDs 1-3 from 2018-2022...and their average age was still just 22.3. 

 

 

[BProland85]

37 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I think they will view him as a corner and he would be our new punt returner as well.  If he has a great workout on April 8th as I’m expecting I can see him as our pick at 15.  If Bowers is at 15 or the top ER then I think they would get the nod but I don’t see that happening.  I don’t see WR either because I think the top three will be gone and I don’t see Ballard giving up on Pierce so soon without seeing him really play with AR.  So no receiver in round 1.  So for me today April 2nd my guess at pick 15 is Cooper Dejean.

Please no. 

[smittywerb]

52 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It seems like you're excluding prospects at other positions because you don't want those positions in the first round.

oh sorry, I was skimming the convo and thought this was regarding only WRs.  Personally, based on what we need, I’d say Turner depending on far he falls is worth a trade up.  Other than that, if it isn’t MHJ or Nabers, I’m fine staying at 15.   

[shasta519]

58 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

Please no. 

 

Right? I would love to get Dejean in R2, but at #15? I don't think he's as good as Kyle Hamilton, but I do think he can be a good S/nickel player. 

[w87r]

2 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

Right? I would love to get Dejean in R2, but at #15? I don't think he's as good as Kyle Hamilton, but I do think he can be a good S/nickel player. 

Just saw a mock with a trade back to #19 and taking Dejean.

 

#15  for #19, #83

 

Perfect points on value chart.

 

3 weeks from Thursday, will be here before we know it.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Don't want to get into the weeds on all these prospects, but I will say that Odunze at #15 would be a steal, not settling. If we got Odunze at #15, that's a far better outcome than trading up for Nabers or MHJ. 

 

 

I disagree. I think it does, and already has in a lot of cases. If QB is the ultimate force multiplier, than is the difference between an elite WR prospect and a pretty good WR prospect all that pronounced? The Chiefs appear to have adjusted their way of valuing the WR position, primarily because they have Patrick Mahomes and Andy Reid.

 

Other teams have done the same, and we see really good WR prospects on Day 2 every year, having success in the NFL. Which speaks to why the top five yardage guys from 2023 only includes one first rounder. The same is true of 2022, and 2021, and 2020... At WR, there is a clear and established trend showing that high producing players are found in later rounds just as much as they're found at the top of the first round.

 

Your post suggests that you have made a similar adjustment to the way you value corners in a zone based defense. This is how you find value.

 

'Just caring about the talent at the very top' seems incredibly dismissive of what we know about the draft. 'The talent at the very top' busts at about a 50% rate, and elite playmakers come from all spots in the draft, at every position. Zeroing in on the top 10-15 prospects in any given draft is mathematically imprudent. In fact, the teams that seem to do better in the draft -- and the difference between the most successful drafters and the average drafters is pretty marginal, over a substantial period of time -- are generally teams that pick in the back half of the first round, or who hit on Day 2.

 

"The next Kelce" is particularly dissonant to me, since not only was Kelce a third rounder, but the top TEs historically are not high first rounders. The next Kelce is probably going to be someone who gets drafted on Day 2 and then takes off in his second year. 

Agreed.  I'm not getting into the weeds of one player over the other.  Too many good options to improve the roster at pick 15.  Whether the player is elite or not, he will likely be better than the starters we have at about 13 of 22 positions., so its a win from that perspective.   One WR, TE, RG, RT, two EDGEs, 3 LBers, 4 players in the secondary.  That's 13 positions where we could use elite talent but don't have it.  But you don't go into the the draft simply settling for picking any of those positions with pick 15 and call it a day, it's a waste of capital.  I normally don't care about the top of the draft, but this seems like the year to have that "$28M guy" replacing two "$14M guys with ceilings". 

 

The professional talents scouts like Ballard have a big board.  Rank the top 100, and beyond.  They expect those players to perform in the NFL exactly the way they are ranked.  MHJ better than Puca.  Jonathan Taylor better than Evan Hull, etc.

 

The fact that players play higher than what they were ranked isn't relevant to the ranking process, unless the scouts learn as to the reasons why they outplay their ranking and adjust their next ranking to reflect it.   Speed, size, hands, route running, strength, etc are all going to be big factors in how they are ranked.  Nobody expects their 25th ranked player to be better than their 15th ranked player going into this draft, or else they wouldn't have them ranked that way going in. 

 

It seems like you're saying to never trade up unless its for a QB, because there have been players drafted in lower rounds that have played like top 15 picks.  I don't get that 

 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, shasta519 said:

 

Raimann was a 25 year-old rookie.

 

IMO, even with OL players tending to have longer careers than other positions, that type of prospect will likely never get drafted in R1 because teams place so much value on age when drafting early, due to the assumed upside with technical and physical development and being further away from age-based regression.

 

The Colts were actually bottom 5 in average age drafting from RDs 1-3 from 2018-2022...and their average age was still just 22.3. 

 

 

Age matters, but only if the player turns out to be any good.  Gotta get that part right first, 

 

I can't believe that teams would pass on a LT they thought was a top 15 player, because they are worried about whether or not the 4 year contract he signs at the end of his rookie contract would be his last contract.  Passing on a player you think is a top 15 player because he might be out of the NFL 7 to 8 years from now seems like a weird priority to me.  In fact, I'd be surprised that any successful GM would even consider it.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The professional talents scouts like Ballard have a big board.  Rank the top 100, and beyond.  They expect those players to perform in the NFL exactly the way they are ranked.  MHJ better than Puca.  Jonathan Taylor better than Evan Hull, etc.

 

The fact that players play higher than what they were ranked isn't relevant to the ranking process, unless the scouts learn as to the reasons why they outplay their ranking and adjust their next ranking to reflect it.   Speed, size, hands, route running, strength, etc are all going to be big factors in how they are ranked.  Nobody expects their 25th ranked player to be better than their 15th ranked player going into this draft, or else they wouldn't have them ranked that way going in. 

 

I think this is overly simplistic, especially the bolded. In general, yes, a player ranked higher on the board is considered the better prospect. But there are a lot of variables at play when a team sets their board, and even more enter the equation on draft day.

 

What's mostly missing from your consideration is the fact that there are 32 boards that matter, and none of them are the same. Puca Nacua was the 177th pick last year, but that doesn't mean the Rams didn't feel he was a top 50 player. A good scouting department is absolutely identifying trends, considering their team situation, and adjusting their board for these and other factors, like positional value. 

 

Quote

It seems like you're saying to never trade up unless its for a QB, because there have been players drafted in lower rounds that have played like top 15 picks.  I don't get that 

 

Not at all. I'm saying don't put all your eggs in one basket, because even the best baskets fail at a 50% rate.

 

Specific to this year, I don't think moving up for any specific player is worth the premium, unless you want a QB. And that's because of how I see the top of this draft class.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, wig said:

 

Exactly. If it's not the top 3 for WR, I'd rather wait for a YAC guy like Corley..  

 

To be clear, the ew was for making me remember Stephen Hill. I don't see BTJ as a similar prospect at all, but that's fine.

[DougDew]

15 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think this is overly simplistic, especially the bolded. In general, yes, a player ranked higher on the board is considered the better prospect. But there are a lot of variables at play when a team sets their board, and even more enter the equation on draft day.

 

What's mostly missing from your consideration is the fact that there are 32 boards that matter, and none of them are the same. Puca Nacua was the 177th pick last year, but that doesn't mean the Rams didn't feel he was a top 50 player. A good scouting department is absolutely identifying trends, considering their team situation, and adjusting their board for these and other factors, like positional value. 

 

 

Not at all. I'm saying don't put all your eggs in one basket, because even the best baskets fail at a 50% rate.

 

Specific to this year, I don't think moving up for any specific player is worth the premium, unless you want a QB. And that's because of how I see the top of this draft class.

This discussion is blending various things here.  First, we are dealing with perceived talent difference between players ranked at pick 8 and pick 15.  There is positional value variable in there.  And there is a talent need with the Colts, which also has a positional value variable to it.

 

With pick 46, I doubt that the Colts would a get a player any better than Paye, Dayo/Ebukam, Grover, Franklin, Speed, Moore, Juju, Flowers, Jones, Woods, Granson, Ogletree, Smith, or AP.   Definitely not better than Raimann, AR, JT, Pittman, Downs or Buckner.

 

Allowing for some rotation in 3 wide sets and nickel coverages, that's about 18 starters.  Both Ss and French could be upgraded with pick 46.    C could be on the table if you think Kelly doesn't get another contract.  That's all 22.   The last 4 positions mentioned can be found pretty easy on the open market, not to mention round 3 and beyond..  IMO, there is nothing special about saving pick 46 for them. 

 

So, if you can't upgrade 18 picks with 46, and there is no point saving pick 46 for the others, it seems that pick 46, IMO, has very little value in this draft.  As opposed to some other drafts when the roaster is more bare in spots.  

 

So, Trade it to move up for a WR, EDGE, or TE that has at least that much more incremental talent at 8 than at 15?  I would not be mad at Ballard for taking that swing.  Of course, I expect him to get it right, because that's what he is paid to do.

[jvan1973]

27 minutes ago, DougDew said:

This discussion is blending various things here.  First, we are dealing with perceived talent difference between players ranked at pick 8 and pick 15.  There is positional value variable in there.  And there is a talent need with the Colts, which also has a positional value variable to it.

 

With pick 46, I doubt that the Colts would a get a player any better than Paye, Dayo/Ebukam, Grover, Franklin, Speed, Moore, Juju, Flowers, Jones, Woods, Granson, Ogletree, Smith, or AP.   Definitely not better than Raimann, AR, JT, Pittman, Downs or Buckner.

 

Allowing for some rotation in 3 wide sets and nickel coverages, that's about 18 starters.  Both Ss and French could be upgraded with pick 46.    C could be on the table if you think Kelly doesn't get another contract.  That's all 22.   The last 4 positions mentioned can be found pretty easy on the open market, not to mention round 3 and beyond..  IMO, there is nothing special about saving pick 46 for them. 

 

So, if you can't upgrade 18 picks with 46, and there is no point saving pick 46 for the others, it seems that pick 46, IMO, has very little value in this draft.  As opposed to some other drafts when the roaster is more bare in spots.  

 

So, Trade it to move up for a WR, EDGE, or TE that has at least that much more incremental talent at 8 than at 15?  I would not be mad at Ballard for taking that swing.  Of course, I expect him to get it right, because that's what he is paid to do.

Is truly a mystery how you aren't a GM

[NewColtsFan]

@Superman

 

Hey there….    I don’t think you’re ignoring me.   But I think a question I asked several hours ago got lost as you were in the middle of several conversations.   So I thought I’d ask again.   
 

Seems today, when a poster hits the emoji tab, all you get is the “thanks” option.  All the other options are gone.   Have they been removed, or is there a bug in the software that has to get fixed?  
 

Not a big deal, but I’m curious. 

[GoColts8818]

5 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

@Superman

 

Hey there….    I don’t think you’re ignoring me.   But I think a question I asked several hours ago got lost as you were in the middle of several conversations.   So I thought I’d ask again.   
 

Seems today, when a poster hits the emoji tab, all you get is the “thanks” option.  All the other options are gone.   Have they been removed, or is there a bug in the software that has to get fixed?  
 

Not a big deal, but I’m curious. 

They were removed.  People were using them to troll.  

[w87r]

Dejean has been medically cleared and his pro day is scheduled for April 8th.

[Superman]

30 minutes ago, DougDew said:

So, Trade it to move up for a WR, EDGE, or TE that has at least that much more incremental talent at 8 than at 15?  I would not be mad at Ballard for taking that swing.  Of course, I expect him to get it right, because that's what he is paid to do.

 

The bolded is the fundamental disagreement. Don't get me wrong, we are on very different pages (books?) on the rest of this, but this is the crux of it.

 

You expect the GM to get it right, even though 50% of first round draft picks don't hit. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

 

For me, because 50% of first round draft picks don't hit, I think it's a bad team building strategy to count on your GM 'getting it right.' To me, Ballard's affinity for trading back -- and this is true of other GMs as well, not unique to Ballard -- is rooted in the idea that no team has the market cornered on nailing the draft, so the best way to get value is to maximize the total number of picks, to a reasonable degree. Balance that with the fact that the most dynamic prospects are generally found in the top 30ish range, and sometimes you have to go get your guy (especially at QB), but still acknowledge that just because you love a prospect and draft him in the top ten it doesn't mean your problem has definitely been solved.

 

Generally speaking, if you want to build a quality roster, the way to do it is to draft as many players as you can, not to consolidate your draft value into fewer picks. And I think that's a big reason why the best rosters are made up of players who were drafted in all levels of the draft, and not just the top of the first round.

 

However, on a case by case basis, if a team wants to target a specific player in a trade up, it can pay off. But, the success of that decision still rests primarily on whether the player lives up to your expectations, and there's a 50/50 chance that he won't. It's risky, and you're not really acknowledging that because 'the better players go earlier in the draft,' even though historically that's not necessarily true.

 

I would argue the better strategy is to trade a premium pick for an established player who has proven he can perform at a high level in the NFL; that comes at a greater cost, but is less risky. A bird in the hand... Ballard is hesitant to do either of these, and that might help explain why we don't have "difference makers" at specific positions, but he has shown a willingness to make the veteran move in the past, at the right time. (There were rumors the Colts wanted Jaylen Waddle last year, which I think is perfect -- young but proven player, still two years left on his rookie deal at the time.) I don't think he'd move up in the draft, based on his pattern, his words, and his apparently risk-averse nature. Generally speaking, I agree with his method of valuing draft picks. 

[Superman]

19 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

@Superman

 

Hey there….    I don’t think you’re ignoring me.   But I think a question I asked several hours ago got lost as you were in the middle of several conversations.   So I thought I’d ask again.   
 

Seems today, when a poster hits the emoji tab, all you get is the “thanks” option.  All the other options are gone.   Have they been removed, or is there a bug in the software that has to get fixed?  
 

Not a big deal, but I’m curious. 

 

I did reply, it's in another thread though.

 

 

 

[DougDew]

3 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Is truly a mystery how you aren't a GM

No mystery.  I never applied for the job. 

 

Why do you always have something mean or snarcky to say?

[ColtStrong2013]

3 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

They were removed.  People were using them to troll.  

[DougDew]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The bolded is the fundamental disagreement. Don't get me wrong, we are on very different pages (books?) on the rest of this, but this is the crux of it.

 

You expect the GM to get it right, even though 50% of first round draft picks don't hit. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

 

For me, because 50% of first round draft picks don't hit, I think it's a bad team building strategy to count on your GM 'getting it right.' To me, Ballard's affinity for trading back -- and this is true of other GMs as well, not unique to Ballard -- is rooted in the idea that no team has the market cornered on nailing the draft, so the best way to get value is to maximize the total number of picks, to a reasonable degree. Balance that with the fact that the most dynamic prospects are generally found in the top 30ish range, and sometimes you have to go get your guy (especially at QB), but still acknowledge that just because you love a prospect and draft him in the top ten it doesn't mean your problem has definitely been solved.

 

Generally speaking, if you want to build a quality roster, the way to do it is to draft as many players as you can, not to consolidate your draft value into fewer picks. And I think that's a big reason why the best rosters are made up of players who were drafted in all levels of the draft, and not just the top of the first round.

 

However, on a case by case basis, if a team wants to target a specific player in a trade up, it can pay off. But, the success of that decision still rests primarily on whether the player lives up to your expectations, and there's a 50/50 chance that he won't. It's risky, and you're not really acknowledging that because 'the better players go earlier in the draft,' even though historically that's not necessarily true.

 

I would argue the better strategy is to trade a premium pick for an established player who has proven he can perform at a high level in the NFL; that comes at a greater cost, but is less risky. A bird in the hand... Ballard is hesitant to do either of these, and that might help explain why we don't have "difference makers" at specific positions, but he has shown a willingness to make the veteran move in the past, at the right time. (There were rumors the Colts wanted Jaylen Waddle last year, which I think is perfect -- young but proven player, still two years left on his rookie deal at the time.) I don't think he'd move up in the draft, based on his pattern, his words, and his apparently risk-averse nature. Generally speaking, I agree with his method of valuing draft picks. 

I characterized a trade up from 15 to 8 as taking a swing at getting a true difference maker, and losing out on a player at 46 that would probably not push many of our guys better than what we'd get at pick 82.   

 

In that context, I'm sure that Ballard puts more effort into it than taking a swing.  He isn't well paid for simply taking swings. 

[DougDew]

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

@Superman

 

Hey there….    I don’t think you’re ignoring me.   But I think a question I asked several hours ago got lost as you were in the middle of several conversations.   So I thought I’d ask again.   
 

Seems today, when a poster hits the emoji tab, all you get is the “thanks” option.  All the other options are gone.   Have they been removed, or is there a bug in the software that has to get fixed?  
 

Not a big deal, but I’m curious. 

Some members seemed to use the chucklehead or sadface emoji to troll instead of making a cogent counterpoint or contribution.  I once called the practice "an aggressive use of emojis".  I'm glad someone noticed.

[ColtStrong2013]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

I don't think he'd move up in the draft, based on his pattern, his words, and his apparently risk-averse nature

I would love to see his investment portfolio. You just know he has been watching his money grow in an s & p index fund since he arrived in 2017. 
 

Up 125% since his arrival. 

[Stephen]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

This discussion is blending various things here.  First, we are dealing with perceived talent difference between players ranked at pick 8 and pick 15.  There is positional value variable in there.  And there is a talent need with the Colts, which also has a positional value variable to it.

 

With pick 46, I doubt that the Colts would a get a player any better than Paye, Dayo/Ebukam, Grover, Franklin, Speed, Moore, Juju, Flowers, Jones, Woods, Granson, Ogletree, Smith, or AP.   Definitely not better than Raimann, AR, JT, Pittman, Downs or Buckner.

 

Allowing for some rotation in 3 wide sets and nickel coverages, that's about 18 starters.  Both Ss and French could be upgraded with pick 46.    C could be on the table if you think Kelly doesn't get another contract.  That's all 22.   The last 4 positions mentioned can be found pretty easy on the open market, not to mention round 3 and beyond..  IMO, there is nothing special about saving pick 46 for them. 

 

So, if you can't upgrade 18 picks with 46, and there is no point saving pick 46 for the others, it seems that pick 46, IMO, has very little value in this draft.  As opposed to some other drafts when the roaster is more bare in spots.  

 

So, Trade it to move up for a WR, EDGE, or TE that has at least that much more incremental talent at 8 than at 15?  I would not be mad at Ballard for taking that swing.  Of course, I expect him to get it right, because that's what he is paid to do.

You can get a player better than pittman and downs at 46

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, Stephen said:

You can get a player better than pittman and downs at 46

Yeah, that's not much incentive to stay at 46, IMO.  I think its reasonable for Ballard to try to get Nabers or Bowers, with the fall back position of seeing what AP and Woods would do with AR.

 

I could see spending 46 on the oline or maybe Kinchens the true FS (assuming he's valued that highly).  That would be better support for staying at 15 and taking BPA there, IMO. 

[NewColtsFan]

18 minutes ago, Stephen said:

You can get a player better than pittman and downs at 46

Im not certain at all that that is true.   In my opinion,   I highly doubt it.  

[ColtStrong2013]

26 minutes ago, Stephen said:

You can get a player better than pittman and downs at 46

potential to be better over time, possibly. But no one at 46 is stepping in next year better than either of those. Name them so we can judge… 

[GoColts8818]

43 minutes ago, Stephen said:

You can get a player better than pittman and downs at 46

In theory you can get a player better than both at any pick.  However the odds are not high as both are really good to start with and goes down the later in the draft you wait.

[wig]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The bolded is the fundamental disagreement. Don't get me wrong, we are on very different pages (books?) on the rest of this, but this is the crux of it.

 

You expect the GM to get it right, even though 50% of first round draft picks don't hit. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

 

For me, because 50% of first round draft picks don't hit, I think it's a bad team building strategy to count on your GM 'getting it right.' To me, Ballard's affinity for trading back -- and this is true of other GMs as well, not unique to Ballard -- is rooted in the idea that no team has the market cornered on nailing the draft, so the best way to get value is to maximize the total number of picks, to a reasonable degree. Balance that with the fact that the most dynamic prospects are generally found in the top 30ish range, and sometimes you have to go get your guy (especially at QB), but still acknowledge that just because you love a prospect and draft him in the top ten it doesn't mean your problem has definitely been solved.

 

Generally speaking, if you want to build a quality roster, the way to do it is to draft as many players as you can, not to consolidate your draft value into fewer picks. And I think that's a big reason why the best rosters are made up of players who were drafted in all levels of the draft, and not just the top of the first round.

 

However, on a case by case basis, if a team wants to target a specific player in a trade up, it can pay off. But, the success of that decision still rests primarily on whether the player lives up to your expectations, and there's a 50/50 chance that he won't. It's risky, and you're not really acknowledging that because 'the better players go earlier in the draft,' even though historically that's not necessarily true.

 

I would argue the better strategy is to trade a premium pick for an established player who has proven he can perform at a high level in the NFL; that comes at a greater cost, but is less risky. A bird in the hand... Ballard is hesitant to do either of these, and that might help explain why we don't have "difference makers" at specific positions, but he has shown a willingness to make the veteran move in the past, at the right time. (There were rumors the Colts wanted Jaylen Waddle last year, which I think is perfect -- young but proven player, still two years left on his rookie deal at the time.) I don't think he'd move up in the draft, based on his pattern, his words, and his apparently risk-averse nature. Generally speaking, I agree with his method of valuing draft picks. 

 

I definitely agree that the best long term strategy to gain solid talent and be competitive long term is to stay put or trade back. Trading premium picks for proven players is only going to work if you want to put all your cards in on a time frame. You're talking about two completely different strategies to me. And I'm a big fan of collecting bullets in the draft typically. This is the first draft I can think of - outside of me being open to it last year for a QB they were all in on - that I want to move up.  But I see value with 3-4 QBs at the top and 3 elite WR prospects.   

[Superman]

36 minutes ago, wig said:

 

I definitely agree that the best long term strategy to gain solid talent and be competitive long term is to stay put or trade back. Trading premium picks for proven players is only going to work if you want to put all your cards in on a time frame. You're talking about two completely different strategies to me. And I'm a big fan of collecting bullets in the draft typically. This is the first draft I can think of - outside of me being open to it last year for a QB they were all in on - that I want to move up.  But I see value with 3-4 QBs at the top and 3 elite WR prospects.   

 

Yeah, I think we're mostly on the same page. My thinking is that with the draft being top heavy at 2-3 positions, it's probably going to push a top ten level prospect down to #15. Your thinking is it will push a top five level prospect down to #10ish, and depending on who it is, we should go get him. There's nothing wrong with the logic, I probably just like some of the guys who will be there at #15 more than you do.