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

[stitches]

7 hours 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.

This will not be a popular opinion here but the reality is - in the long run most GMs will have about the same success rate with picks in the same range and even in the first round you cannot really rely on the picks working out at super high rate. So if the league wide success rate is 50%, a reasonable expectation for a good GM is to get it right 55% of the time, not 80-90-....100% of the time. And BTW that's the reason trading down is usually a good move - it gives you more bites at the apple, while the success rate is not impacted dramatically. Example - let's say the success rate at 15 is 55% and you get an offer to trade down to 20(assumed success rate of 50%) and a 3d round pick(assumed success rate 30%). You get a lot more value from just trading down than by having above average drafting GM compared to average one. Of course here we are taking very simplified binary approach, but if you do the same with expected value(expected WAR, or whatever performance metric you want to use), you will get similar results. That's why I'm usually against trading up and in favor of trading down. You are usually adding value to your team with trade downs.

 

So yeah..this is where the GMs really make the big difference in the draft(And Ballard has been good with it in that respect). The second area where the GM makes a difference in the draft is what positions they decide to prioritize with the high value picks(and this is where we probably can have some  gripes with Ballard because he's spent some really high value picks on low value positions). But even in that case - him drafting Nelson super high was working out great until his injuries hit(he was the OL with highest WAR in the entire league for the first 3 years in the league)...

[DougDew]

7 hours ago, stitches said:

This will not be a popular opinion here but the reality is - in the long run most GMs will have about the same success rate with picks in the same range and even in the first round you cannot really rely on the picks working out at super high rate. So if the league wide success rate is 50%, a reasonable expectation for a good GM is to get it right 55% of the time, not 80-90-....100% of the time. And BTW that's the reason trading down is usually a good move - it gives you more bites at the apple, while the success rate is not impacted dramatically. Example - let's say the success rate at 15 is 55% and you get an offer to trade down to 20(assumed success rate of 50%) and a 3d round pick(assumed success rate 30%). You get a lot more value from just trading down than by having above average drafting GM compared to average one. Of course here we are taking very simplified binary approach, but if you do the same with expected value(expected WAR, or whatever performance metric you want to use), you will get similar results. That's why I'm usually against trading up and in favor of trading down. You are usually adding value to your team with trade downs.

 

So yeah..this is where the GMs really make the big difference in the draft(And Ballard has been good with it in that respect). The second area where the GM makes a difference in the draft is what positions they decide to prioritize with the high value picks(and this is where we probably can have some  gripes with Ballard because he's spent some really high value picks on low value positions). But even in that case - him drafting Nelson super high was working out great until his injuries hit(he was the OL with highest WAR in the entire league for the first 3 years in the league)...

I didn't expect my throw away sentence in a larger comment about there possibly being a bright line between the talent at 8 and 15 to generate a couple of long comments about statistics of GMs picking actual players (and it being not much better than a coin flip).  I already know them BTW, thanks.  And if this turns into a Ballard Grievance thread, don't blame me simply because I mentioned the name Ballard.

 

The convo was about a possible bright line in the talent bucket, so I could support Ballard making a trade up given that every body on this board thinks the Colts need more explosive players at at least a few positions.  Since the convo was starting to drift towards me listing players who could possibly be in that bucket ...me drawing where the bright line might be....I turned the convo backed to where it belonged, IMO, and said I expect Ballard to know if there is a bright line and make that trade because he knows.  That's what "expecting to get it right " means.   That he thinks there is a bright line worth trading into for if he indeed trades up...and doesn't just throw a dart at it. 

 

I can't advocate a trade up because I don't know if there is a bright line (and I'm not going to spend the energy and someone else's millions to know).  But I expect Ballard to know if he trades up.    That stats you quoted aren't related to what I was saying.  

[stitches]

13 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I didn't expect my throw away sentence in a larger comment about there possibly being a bright line between the talent at 8 and 15 to generate a couple of long comments about statistics of GMs.  I already know them BTW, thanks.  And if this turns into a Ballard Grievance thread, don't blame me simply because I mentioned the name Ballard.

 

The convo was about a possible bright line in the talent bucket, so I could support Ballard making a trade up given that every body on this board thinks the Colts need more explosive players at at least a few positions.  Since the convo was starting to drift towards me listing players who could possibly be in that bucket ...me drawing where the bright line might be....I turned the convo backed to where it belonged, IMO, and said I expect Ballard to know if there is a bright line and make that trade because he knows.  That's what "expecting to get it right " means.   That he thinks there is a bright line worth trading into for if he indeed trades up...and doesn't just throw a dart at it. 

 

I can't advocate a trade up because I don't know if there is a bright line (and I'm not going to spend the energy and someone else's millions to know).  But I expect Ballard to know if he trades up.    That stats you quoted aren't related to what I was saying.  

IMO there is almost never a bright line. Even the picks in top 5 don't have dramatically better success rate than pick at 15 and the value you sacrifice to get up to that spot will almost never be worth giving up. The bright line is almost always about QBs simply because with QBs the expected return is much higher(like... order of magnitute higher compared to some positions so even though you are sacrificing some pick value, you gain A TON of positional value) 

[DougDew]

40 minutes ago, stitches said:

IMO there is almost never a bright line. Even the picks in top 5 don't have dramatically better success rate than pick at 15 and the value you sacrifice to get up to that spot will almost never be worth giving up. The bright line is almost always about QBs simply because with QBs the expected return is much higher(like... order of magnitute higher compared to some positions so even though you are sacrificing some pick value, you gain A TON of positional value) 

Well, that's your GM opinion.  Ballard said before that he didn't want to drop below an ability to get an elite player...by trading down to even 12 in 2018...so he has a view that there could be bright lines in the talent pool.  (Even if he was talking about just one player, there is still a bright line between him and the others), Other pundits. maybe even last year, said there was a drop off at about pick 20 and the talent was basically the same until pick 40.  Other years they say that there may not be 32 first round quality guys in the draft, and other years it runs into the mid thirties.  I'm less of a junior GM than many here, and just going by what I read, there are many pundits over many years who seem to strike bight lines. 

 

This season, if the talent pool strikes a line at about pick 12 or 13, I'd hate to be at pick 15.  I'd rather be at 25 or 8.

 

I think its safe to say that the pundits think that Bowers, MHJ, Nabers, ...maybe Odunze....and Turner have separated themselves from the rest.  And possibly a couple of Corners if we let them play man coverage more (if not, then that talent is not useful to us) And maybe LT Alt and another LT.  That's 9 players plus 3 or 4 QBs.   Pick 12 or 13.  But that's just based upon what I'm reading from others.

 

The success rate really has nothing to do with it.  These players are all just prospects, and there is a methodology to how prospects are evaluated.  You have to follow and trust your methodology and not discount it simply because of a broad statistic.  Unless you really want to dissent why Puca and Purdy have done so well relative to how all 32 teams' methodology ranked them as prospects.  Maybe just chalk it up to exceptions (good luck, IOW) that can't always be captured by reasonable and affordable analytical methods..

[wig]

9 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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.

 

You pretty much nailed my thoughts, adding that I have an appetite for a pass catching difference maker which I think we lack. And I don't think Bowers makes it past the Jets. But if I had a crystal ball that said we'd lose out on the top 3 but got Bowers at 15, I'd be all for it. Just don't see it 

[ADnum1]

16 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Is truly a mystery how you aren't a GM

Aren't you supposed to disagree with the post instead of the poster ?

[ADnum1]

I could see Ballard taking an edge or Dejean at 15, then going best WR available in the 2nd or 3rd.

 

I think we desperately need a WR that's going to push Pierce

[shasta519]

17 hours ago, DougDew said:

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.

 

The COVID year changed things a bit, but even with it, there's less than a dozen players at Raimann's age taken in R1 in the past 15 years...out of like 430+ non-QB R1 picks.

 

Many are interior OL players, with a few DL players, a TE and a CB thrown in. Many of them also turned 24 well after the draft (not 25 like Raimann). Some hit, but many did not. So it's not like the floor is higher either.

 

But none were OTs. It just doesn't really happen for some reason, especially at technical positions like OT, WR and CB. 

 

Good GMs project development and upside. Older players don't really offer it as much. I think it's really that simple. You can draft an older prospect you think is already pretty good or you can draft a younger prospect you think can be great. And teams are going to the choose the younger player. Besides, if they were truly already great players, they likely aren't still in college at age 24. 

 

To the larger point, I don't think Raimann's success changes how teams view R1 picks. 

[1959Colts]

55 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

I could see Ballard taking an edge or Dejean at 15, then going best WR available in the 2nd or 3rd.

 

I think we desperately need a WR that's going to push Pierce

I agree with you here. I'd keep an eye on LAIATU LATU, UCLA

and depending on how Dejean's workout goes, could also see Ballard trading back a few slots... out of 15

WR in 2nd or 3rd round seems likely.  OT and LB also possible early round picks.

 

 

 

[shasta519]

18 hours ago, w87r said:

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.

 

Yeah. I see Dejean as the perfect type of trade-back option. If Ballard doesn't see much difference between the players available at #15 and can take advantage of a team looking to move up a few spots and get an extra pick.

[DougDew]

33 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

The COVID year changed things a bit, but even with it, there's less than a dozen players at Raimann's age taken in R1 in the past 15 years...out of like 430+ non-QB R1 picks.

 

Many are interior OL players, with a few DL players, a TE and a CB thrown in. Many of them also turned 24 well after the draft (not 25 like Raimann). Some hit, but many did not. So it's not like the floor is higher either.

 

But none were OTs. It just doesn't really happen for some reason, especially at technical positions like OT, WR and CB. 

 

Good GMs project development and upside. Older players don't really offer it as much. I think it's really that simple. You can draft an older prospect you think is already pretty good or you can draft a younger prospect you think can be great. And teams are going to the choose the younger player. Besides, if they were truly already great players, they likely aren't still in college at age 24. 

 

To the larger point, I don't think Raimann's success changes how teams view R1 picks. 

I can't disagree too much.  My main point is that we did not have to wait for Raimann to develop.  He has achieved the play status of a 22 year old taken three years ago in the third round and has developed.  I strongly believe that if any OT needing team would have known Raimann would have been as good as he has been this early, they would not have waited until round 3 based simply upon the age metric.  Especially a OT that can last to age 35.  With other positions maybe, but OTs can have longevity.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I can't disagree too much.  My main point is that we did not have to wait for Raimann to develop.  He has achieved the play status of a 22 year old taken three years ago in the third round and has developed.  I strongly believe that if any OT needing team would have known Raimann would have been as good as he has been this early, they would not have waited until round 3 based simply upon the age metric.  Especially a OT that can last to age 35.  With other positions maybe, but OTs can have longevity.

 

But there's always a chance he's maxed out as he's already in his prime. And when his rookie deal ends, he's going to need a big contract for his age 29-32 seasons, which provides a bit more risk for age-based regression or injuries.

 

That same 22 year-old might take 2-3 years to develop, but he also is more likely to have a chance at getting to a higher level when he gets there. And when it comes time to extend him, he's going to be playing those age 26-29 seasons, typically seen as prime seasons, so less assumed risk.

 

I am not arguing whether this the right way to do it, I am just trying to get into the minds of a GM. And this way of thinking makes some sense to me when it comes to R1 picks. Of course, it all assumes you get the pick right in either case.

 

The actual shrewd thing to do would be to draft an older prospect, get those prime mid 20s seasons on a cheap rookie deal and then let him walk in FA if you can. But R1 picks are usually seen as franchise players, so this is much tougher to do.

[Superman]

Here's what Ballard said about "elite" prospects a couple years ago: 

https://coltswire.usatoday.com/lists/indianapolis-colts-chris-ballard-nfl-draft-press-conference-takeaways-2022/

 

Quote

 

“So, we did some studies and I know a lot of teams have done this. The difference in each draft, the level of star player in each draft is different. Usually, it will fall off anywhere between eight to 12 where you are saying, ‘Okay, we think these are real blue-chip players.’ Then from 13, 14 to 40, here’s this group of players. Then from 41 to 80, here’s this group of players.

 

“When you look at the history of all their careers, over time, it usually plays out pretty similar. Unless we just know, like we’re going, ‘Okay, this guy’s got some real special stuff to go get.’ Like Jonathan (Taylor), we moved up to get Jonathan and we thought he had special stuff in him. Then it’s usually good to just be patient and wait, then if you get a chance to kick back and stay in that same realm and get the similar type player, plus, pick up another one. That’s usually the philosophy we go with.”

 

 

This is before the 2022 draft, one of the weaker recent draft classes. Last year, Ballard said they had 17 first round grades in the draft class; different terminology, but we were picking at #4, so it's reasonable to assume that he was talking about elite level prospects. In 2019, he said he saw 14 blue chip prospects. So each class is different, some have more, some have less, but there's a range. 

 

Ballard has also previously said that there are players who get drafted in the top half of the first round that the Colts view as third rounders. This highlights the fact that every team views the draft differently, and while Team A and Team B might both have 12 blue chippers on their board, it's unlikely that they have the same 12 players. So the number and the exact players considered "elite" prospects is team specific, and draft specific. Which is why Ballard said last year that he thought the Colts would get the best player in the draft at #4.

 

My personal view is that this draft is pretty strong at the top, and then you have 1 or 2 QBs that will go higher than I think they should, which pushes some good talent down. I'd say 13-15 blue chippers this year, which puts the Colts in great shape to get an "elite" prospect at #15.

 

If I felt like there was one specific guy who would solve a problem for this roster at a crucial position, and that guy was much more likely to succeed in the NFL than the guys after him at that position, then I'd think trading up would be a good move. I think MHJ, Nabers, and Odunze are great prospects, but the separation between them at the next tier of WRs is not significant enough, IMO, to validate the cost of moving up to get one of them.

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

But there's always a chance he's maxed out as he's already in his prime. And when his rookie deal ends, he's going to need a big contract for his age 29-32 seasons, which provides a bit more risk for age-based regression or injuries.

 

That same 22 year-old might take 2-3 years to develop, but he also is more likely to have a chance at getting to a higher level when he gets there. And when it comes time to extend him, he's going to be playing those age 26-29 seasons, typically seen as prime seasons, so less assumed risk.

 

I am not arguing whether this the right way to do it, I am just trying to get into the minds of a GM. And this way of thinking makes some sense to me when it comes to R1 picks. Of course, it all assumes you get the pick right in either case.

 

The actual shrewd thing to do would be to draft an older prospect, get those prime mid 20s seasons on a cheap rookie deal and then let him walk in FA if you can. But R1 picks are usually seen as franchise players, so this is much tougher to do.

I don't see the difference if both the 25 year old and 22 year old play at a high level when they are 25.  One is immediate, the other takes three years.  From there, the age factor relative to performance/health issues going forward is the same.  The only difference is that you now have to spend boku cap on the 22/25 year old to retain him while you have the 25 year old on a rookie deal for 4 years.

 

IMO, you take a player in round 3 because you expect him to take several years to get up to speed.  Not because you know that he's a good player now, but he's older.

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

I'd say 13-15 blue chippers this year, which puts the Colts in great shape to get an "elite" prospect at #15.

I think getting the last one on the board is not how I would do it, if in the same off season I'm saying we need more explosion.

 

I know that explosion doesn't necessarily mean draft pick, it could mean its all solved by getting AR.  But there is a lot of space for it to look like you're wanting to get more explosive and simply waiting for the last explosive guy to come to you. 

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think getting the last one on the board is not how I would do it, if in the same off season I'm saying we need more explosion.

 

I know that explosion doesn't necessarily mean draft pick, it could mean its all solved by getting AR.  But there is a lot of space for it to look like you're wanting to get more explosive and simply waiting for the last explosive guy to come to you. 

 

First, the way I see the board, it wouldn't be the last blue chipper at #15, because I think some players will be over drafted, particularly at QB. 

 

Second, I don't agree with the idea that the only way to add explosiveness to the offense is at the top of the first round. In fact, my philosophy is that Day 2 is the best value for adding WRs, so I'm not even married to the idea that we have to take a WR in the first round. 

 

Yours is a very pessimistic viewpoint of the value of #15 this year. 

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

First, the way I see the board, it wouldn't be the last blue chipper at #15, because I think some players will be over drafted, particularly at QB. 

 

Second, I don't agree with the idea that the only way to add explosiveness to the offense is at the top of the first round. In fact, my philosophy is that Day 2 is the best value for adding WRs, so I'm not even married to the idea that we have to take a WR in the first round. 

 

Yours is a very pessimistic viewpoint of the value of #15 this year. 

I think other teams will likely value the receivers over the corners, so Ballard would be most likely to get his explosion from a corner, the second tier receivers, or the second tier Edges at 15.  But it may be deep enough, who knows.

 

I would not really look for "value" if I'm looking for explosion.  I would spend capital to make sure I got the explosive guy.  The capital I save is just going to give me more of the nonexplosive guys that I already have.  Provided that I trust my methodology to recognize the difference between the guy at 8 and the guy ranked 46. 

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think other teams will likely value the receivers over the corners, so Ballard would be most likely to get his explosion from a corner, the second tier receivers, or the second tier Edges at 15.  But it may be deep enough, who knows.

 

I would not really look for "value" if I'm looking for explosion.  I would spend capital to make sure I got the explosive guy.  The capital I save is just going to give me more of the nonexplosive guys that I already have.  Provided that I trust my methodology to recognize the difference between the guy at 8 and the guy ranked 46. 

 

Value and explosiveness are not mutually exclusive, especially at WR. There are plenty of explosive WR prospects outside of the top three, even if you don't want to acknowledge them.

[stitches]

34 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Value and explosiveness are not mutually exclusive, especially at WR. There are plenty of explosive WR prospects outside of the top three, even if you don't want to acknowledge them.

In fact some of the most explosive WRs are firmly in our range(BTJ, Worthy, AD Mitchell... hell even if you want to go even lower in the draft - Xavier Legette in the 2nd-3d... is another explosive athlete) 

[Stephen]

17 minutes ago, stitches said:

In fact some of the most explosive WRs are firmly in our range(BTJ, Worthy, AD Mitchell... hell even if you want to go even lower in the draft - Xavier Legette in the 2nd-3d... is another explosive athlete) 

There are but most of them I don't  want. Brian thomas I would love and Mitchell may be better than pierce  not sure about worthy and legette.  Worthy is fast, but you like to see better production td wise for the speed he has. That's  why I like thomas jr and Troy Franklin who are probably  better than legette and mitchell

[1959Colts]

Looks possible that Michael Penix may slip into the top 15...

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/michael-penix-jr-visited-with-broncos-on-tuesday-raiders-on-wednesday

Michael Penix Jr. visited with Broncos on Tuesday, Raiders on Wednesday

 

...Denver holds the No. 12 pick in the upcoming draft. Las Vegas has No. 13 overall.

Widely expected to be a first-round pick, Penix had his Pro Day workout last week and is set to meet with several teams. He told ESPN that the Giants, Falcons, and Steelers are also on his list for pre-draft visits...

 

[stitches]

Just now, Stephen said:

There are but most of them I don't  want. Brian thomas I would love and Mitchell may be better than pierce  not sure about worthy and legette.  Worthy is fast, but you like to see better production td wise for the speed he has. That's  why I like thomas jr and Troy Franklin who are probably  better than legette and mitchell

Keep in mind Ewers is not good. Both those receivers suffered production wise because of it. 

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I don't see the difference if both the 25 year old and 22 year old play at a high level when they are 25.  One is immediate, the other takes three years.  From there, the age factor relative to performance/health issues going forward is the same.  The only difference is that you now have to spend boku cap on the 22/25 year old to retain him while you have the 25 year old on a rookie deal for 4 years.

 

IMO, you take a player in round 3 because you expect him to take several years to get up to speed.  Not because you know that he's a good player now, but he's older.

 

There's a rather large difference between paying a large contract to a 26 year-old and a 29 year-old. Not to mention the 5th year option gives you cost control over another year. Do you want a guy who is in his prime or a guy who could be 30?

 

22 year-olds don't automatically take 2-3 years to develop. And 25 year-old doesn't always make the transition. So it's just a bet either way. And if a team had to bet on one of these happening, teams seem to be taking the younger player early.

 

Raimann was never really a R1 pick anyways...he was a mid-R2 prospect (who actually fell a round). So this is sort of all a hypothetical based on a player that hasn't really existed, at least in recent NFL history. But based on what we have seen, when given the chance, teams are going younger. We can't see their draft boards of course, but it's pretty logical to assume that a team has passed on a player in R1 due to age or another player's age was the deciding factor, just by how the draft has fallen.

 

[colts89]

Unless we sign or trade for a veteran CB, I'm willing to bet we trade down, pick a DB in the 20s, and pick a WR in the second. Ballard will die by his conviction of being scared to make big moves. At least he's consistent, and if it doesn't work out and the Wrs that he could of traded up for ball out in the league, may it be one of his last move as the Colts GM.

[Jason_]

3 minutes ago, colts89 said:

Unless we sign or trade for a veteran CB, I'm willing to beat we trade down, pick a DB in the 20s, and pick a WR in the second.

 

I'd take that bet

[DougDew]

33 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

There's a rather large difference between paying a large contract to a 26 year-old and a 29 year-old. Not to mention the 5th year option gives you cost control over another year. Do you want a guy who is in his prime or a guy who could be 30?

 

22 year-olds don't automatically take 2-3 years to develop. And 25 year-old doesn't always make the transition. So it's just a bet either way. And if a team had to bet on one of these happening, teams seem to be taking the younger player early.

 

Raimann was never really a R1 pick anyways...he was a mid-R2 prospect (who actually fell a round). So this is sort of all a hypothetical based on a player that hasn't really existed, at least in recent NFL history. But based on what we have seen, when given the chance, teams are going younger. We can't see their draft boards of course, but it's pretty logical to assume that a team has passed on a player in R1 due to age or another player's age was the deciding factor, just by how the draft has fallen.

 

I've lost track of the point of this convo and don't have the energy to revisit its source.  All I can say is that if I knew a player would play well almost right away at a very important position that had nobody manning it, and have him on a 4 year deal, I would take him before I would take players that really had only ceiling to their resume.

 

That's the way I would view picks 8, 15, and 46.

[ColtStrong2013]

Just now, DougDew said:

I've lost track of the point of this convo and don't have the energy to revisit its source.  All I can say is that if I knew a player would play well almost right away at a very important position on a 4 year deal, I would take him before I would take players that really had only ceiling to their resume.

I’m not sure that has ever been Ballard based on what I have seen. Have you seen the clip of him when he was with the bears breaking down the cornerbacks available in the 2006 draft? It’s interesting. He didn’t exactly promote who he wanted nor was responsible. But it’s obvious he was indicating Devin Hester had the explosive upside and ability to produce in multiple ways versus a guy or two that was higher floor and more likely to produce immediately. They obviously took Hester and he scored on the opening kickoff of the Super Bowl 10 months later on his way to a HOF career. 

[DougDew]

18 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

I’m not sure that has ever been Ballard based on what I have seen. Have you seen the clip of him when he was with the bears breaking down the cornerbacks available in the 2006 draft? It’s interesting. He didn’t exactly promote who he wanted nor was responsible. But it’s obvious he was indicating Devin Hester had the explosive upside and ability to produce in multiple ways versus a guy or two that was higher floor and more likely to produce immediately. They obviously took Hester and he scored on the opening kickoff of the Super Bowl 10 months later on his way to a HOF career. 

I don't know how Ballard feels about that.  What he would do if he was confident that a player would succeed right away.

 

I'm talking about giving up pick 46, which is likely a ceiling guy, to move up to 8 for a player you "knew" was going to step in and be good right away.  I offered Raimann as an example, but the age issue muddied the discussion.  Maybe theoretically trading up for Nelson would be a good example, except he's a G so I would pass on that trade. 

[ColtStrong2013]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

I don't know how Ballard feels about that.  What he would do if he was confident that a player would succeed right away.

 

I'm talking about giving up pick 46, which is likely a ceiling guy, to move up to 8 for a player you "knew" was gong to step in and be good right away.

is that an exact science? I can look at the draft the last two decades and see plenty of top 10 busts… 

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

is that an exact science? I can look at the draft the last two decades and see plenty of top 10 busts… 

Please see my other comments, because this is going to be repetitive. 

 

If you're not going to trust your own board for how you rank players, and instead chalk up not doing anything to the stats that say they may be busts, then I'd suggest that person needs to retire and hand over the keys to somebody who trusts their own scouts.

 

Assuming I separate out MHJ from the rest of the players as being close to a sure thing NFL player at an important position, I'm not going to give up pick 46 to move up and get him because in the past a lot of top 10 guys were busts?    I don't get that. 

[jvan1973]

39 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Please see my other comments, because this is going to be repetitive. 

 

If you're not going to trust your own board for how you rank players, and instead chalk up not doing anything to the stats that say they may be busts, then I'd suggest that person needs to retire and hand over the keys to somebody who trusts their own scouts.

 

Assuming I separate out MHJ from the rest of the players as being close to a sure thing NFL player at an important position, I'm not going to give up pick 46 to move up and get him because in the past a lot of top 10 guys were busts?    I don't get that. 

You're assuming the Colts could trade 15 and 46 to get into the top 10.  You are also assuming the player they get in the top 10 is better than the collective of 15 and 46.   I'm quite positive those and many other scenarios have and are being discussed daily.    You have watched a few YouTube videos on potential draft picks.   Every NFL team have several scouts spending hundreds of hours watching tape,  going to the combine,  going to pro days,  interviewing not only the player but his college coaches.    You try to simplify a very complex process.   Then claim,  any great player drafted after the first couple of rounds is a dart throw.   Then double down on it.    GMs get it wrong all the time,  but it isn't because they don't have plans A-Z in place.   

[DougDew]

28 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

You're assuming the Colts could trade 15 and 46 to get into the top 10.  You are also assuming the player they get in the top 10 is better than the collective of 15 and 46.   I'm quite positive those and many other scenarios have and are being discussed daily.    You have watched a few YouTube videos on potential draft picks.   Every NFL team have several scouts spending hundreds of hours watching tape,  going to the combine,  going to pro days,  interviewing not only the player but his college coaches.    You try to simplify a very complex process.   Then claim,  any great player drafted after the first couple of rounds is a dart throw.   Then double down on it.    GMs get it wrong all the time,  but it isn't because they don't have plans A-Z in place.   

I entered this thread again a couple of day ago to pose a theory to discuss.  Not to advocate or discount any move or nonmove.

 

Sure, the other team may not want to trade down.  So far, the nature of the comments have been that it wasn't in the Colts interest to trade up.  I think it is, but only if there is a break in the talent (excluding Corner because I don't think Corners are valued highly in this defense...but that could change.)  From what I am reading. many think there is a break in the EGDE and WR talent, and of course Bowers.  By inference, I'd think those would be receptive to trading up, and some have expressed it.

 

Others are countering my theory by pointing out that top 10s can be busts, and pick 46s can be All pro.  Those are truths, but it has very little to do with why the scouts and GMs ranked the players top 10 or 46 to begin with.  If you trust your board, you will not think your top 10 will bust and your 46 will be All pro, so those general truths don't even apply.  Moreover, if you actually thought that, your 46 would be top 10 and your original top 10 wouldn't even be on the board.

 

If you say that you don't want to risk your pick 46 because of the risk of the top 10 busting, I get that argument.  But that has to do with being conservative and risk averse.  And that's fine too.  But its harder to go get explosive talent that way, and it relies upon the guy at 15...that you didn't have ranked in your top 10....turning out to be All pro.  That's sort of backing into the solution rather than taking forward thinking steps and risks to solve it.  JMO. 

 

Superman has clearly said that he thinks the break is somewhere around 15.  That makes sense as to why not to trade up.  Not because top 10 picks can busts and 46s can be All-pros.  

 

BTW, thanks for the actual discourse.

[Dobbinblitz]

Overall this is a weak draft class for Safety, Linebacker, interior offensive line, and running back. Strengths of this draft are Wide Receiver, offensive Tackles, followed by Quarterback.

 

Ballard will most likely have  a top rated CB sitting there at 15, Quinyon Mitchell did post a 9.75 RAS score. I think this is setting up for a trade back and a late round one WR selection. BTW, Adonai Mitchell posted a 9.99 RAS. Thomas had a 9.82, and Worthy posted a 9.40

[ColtStrong2013]

14 hours ago, DougDew said:

Ballard said before that he didn't want to drop below an ability to get an elite player...by trading down to even 12 in 2018...so he has a view that there could be bright lines in the talent pool.  (Even if he was talking about just one player, there is still a bright line between him and the others), Other pundits. maybe even last year, said there was a drop off at about pick 20 and the talent was basically the same until pick 40.  Other years they say that there may not be 32 first round quality guys in the draft, and other years it runs into the mid thirties.  I'm less of a junior GM than many here, and just going by what I read, there are many pundits over many years who seem to strike bight lines. 

 

This season, if the talent pool strikes a line at about pick 12 or 13, I'd hate to be at pick 15.  I'd rather be at 25 or 8

a lot of people don’t seem to know this or never read that comment by Ballard. He called them “premium players,” and in 2018 they identified 8 non-qb players as premium. His definition of a premium player was something like a player that teams were game planning against on Monday and Tuesday… 

 

so if there are roughly 8 non qb premium players each draft, then you are right about wanting to not be at 15. And I would put my money on a trade back at this point knowing this. I don’t see him trading up, at all. I may be entirely wrong on that, but it seems like they are doing due diligence on certain players projected top 10 in the event they fall to us (Odunze specifically), but also well represented at pro-days of players like Adonai Mitchell in the later part of the 1st round. When I do a mock draft, I rarely sit put at 15, just to see what kind of picks are thrown out and options it leads to (even though I know the mocks are not accurate.) 

[krunk]

13 hours ago, colts89 said:

Unless we sign or trade for a veteran CB, I'm willing to bet we trade down, pick a DB in the 20s, and pick a WR in the second. Ballard will die by his conviction of being scared to make big moves. At least he's consistent, and if it doesn't work out and the Wrs that he could of traded up for ball out in the league, may it be one of his last move as the Colts GM.

How did u like all those big power moves the Carolina Panthers made last year?😢 Turned well didn't it?

[AwesomeAustin]

16 hours ago, DougDew said:

I think other teams will likely value the receivers over the corners, so Ballard would be most likely to get his explosion from a corner, the second tier receivers, or the second tier Edges at 15.  But it may be deep enough, who knows.

 

I would not really look for "value" if I'm looking for explosion.  I would spend capital to make sure I got the explosive guy.  The capital I save is just going to give me more of the nonexplosive guys that I already have.  Provided that I trust my methodology to recognize the difference between the guy at 8 and the guy ranked 46. 

I’m really enjoying what you are saying bc it’s making me think and research a little bit. I looked at the last 25 picks at the #46 slot and no one jumps out. I want to counter what you are recommending with instead of trading up from 15, the Colts should trade up from 46.
 

For me personally, I believe the defense is void of much talent. If the draft shakes out where we can get a 1st round graded DT or DE at 15 and then trade up from 46 for a DB we have graded high…that would be a great start. Addresses positions of need while also keeping it in the spirit of BPA.  
 

With all that said, I wouldn’t be upset if the Colts drafted OL either lol. So I’m on board with trading up but not really into the top 10. I would rather the Colts use their later picks as ammo to get more top 50-100 guys in this draft. I think the roster is super solid in most places. So instead of searching for the diamond in the rough with late round guys who probably can’t make the team, I would like players that can push current players and eventually replace them instead of giving them another contract. 
 

Just off the top of my head here are a few players on both side of the ball it could be beneficial to draft a replacement for instead of signing to another contract. 
 

Smith(relies on injuries, he has played great)

Fries

Kelly

Pierce

Dayo(this is make or break year)

Paye

Speed

Safety 

Corner 

 

Thats 9-10 positions we could use an upgrade or replacement in near future.  I touched a few areas so I hope this makes sense. 

[Solid84]

Lance Zierlein's lastest mock on NFL.com

 

The Colts land Byron Murphy at 15. Johnny Newton was available too. I really like the idea of going DT in the 1st.

[cdgacoltsfan]

3 hours ago, krunk said:

How did u like all those big power moves the Carolina Panthers made last year?😢 Turned well didn't it?

[MikeCurtis]

39 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Lance Zierlein's lastest mock on NFL.com

 

The Colts land Byron Murphy at 15. Johnny Newton was available too. I really like the idea of going DT in the 1st.

It could very well happen

 

I would rather have Latu or J Newton (if we decide to go DT) but can see it happen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, AwesomeAustin said:

I’m really enjoying what you are saying bc it’s making me think and research a little bit. I looked at the last 25 picks at the #46 slot and no one jumps out. I want to counter what you are recommending with instead of trading up from 15, the Colts should trade up from 46.
 

For me personally, I believe the defense is void of much talent. If the draft shakes out where we can get a 1st round graded DT or DE at 15 and then trade up from 46 for a DB we have graded high…that would be a great start. Addresses positions of need while also keeping it in the spirit of BPA.  
 

With all that said, I wouldn’t be upset if the Colts drafted OL either lol. So I’m on board with trading up but not really into the top 10. I would rather the Colts use their later picks as ammo to get more top 50-100 guys in this draft. I think the roster is super solid in most places. So instead of searching for the diamond in the rough with late round guys who probably can’t make the team, I would like players that can push current players and eventually replace them instead of giving them another contract. 
 

Just off the top of my head here are a few players on both side of the ball it could be beneficial to draft a replacement for instead of signing to another contract. 
 

Smith(relies on injuries, he has played great)

Fries

Kelly

Pierce

Dayo(this is make or break year)

Paye

Speed

Safety 

Corner 

 

Thats 9-10 positions we could use an upgrade or replacement in near future.  I touched a few areas so I hope this makes sense. 

Makes great sense to me.  Thanks for the post.  A few things:  

 

My discussion of the trade up is about whether or not Ballard's team views a couple of players as standouts vs the rest.  If so, then a trade up would not be a surprise to me given that he said he wants more "explosion" (wh0 knows what that means really).  I'm not one of these Ballard critics who says he is simply stuck in his ways and will never trade up.  If there is a trade up, I think its because there probably is a break in talent somewhere around pick 11.  I will trust the professionals to make that assessment as I am not going through a bunch of players to try to second guess who should have been picked the day it happens.

 

With the players you listed, I don't know that a player at 46 is going to push any of those guys that much.  I'd rather push Paye/Ebukam with Dallas Turner than with another second rounder like Dayo.  JMO.

 

I also think OT is on the table at 15.  I really do.  If there is a stand out guy there, that's head and shoulders above the rest, why not?  You mentioned Smith is probably reached his peak, and some view him as a true G anyway.  Then if French could replace Kelly next year, AR will have some good young protection for about 5 years.   An OT is not necessarily explosive by himself, but it would allow AR to be more explosive...and would indirectly fit what Ballard was saying about getting more explosive (there are many ways that term can be satisfied later at a press conference, LOL)