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

[DattMavis]

3 hours ago, richard pallo said:

TBH Ballard hasn't really drafted edge or corner early.  I don't consider Paye at 21 early for an ER.  The potential elite go before pick 21.  Usually top 10.  This is the year to move up for Turner.  He is within reach.  That said I wouldn't entirely rule out Ballard trading pick 15 for a starting Edge or WR. 

Fair enough. I was considering round 1-2 as "early." I suppose it is a very subjective word to use. I apologize.

I personally like Latu the most if we're going that route.

[Moosejawcolt]

57 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I’m not willing to assume the risk on Latu.  I would rather move up for Turner or Nabors.  Increase your chances of getting a difference maker.

It's really depends on the medicals

[Moosejawcolt]

1 hour ago, cjwhiskers said:

 

If Nabers is there @ 9 you absolutely pull that trigger.

They r never trading up for Nabers or any receiver.

[Dobbinblitz]

Ballard needs his third Triplet, but I fully expect him to trade back. Just do not see him parting with the amount and quality of draft capital needed to move up, based on what he has said, and more importantly done here a Colts GM. There is a lot of pre-draft smokeT but -this leopard keeps his spots.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, cjwhiskers said:

 

It's behind a pay wall =/. "Look" I'm not saying I don't want a "complete" team, I just strongly feel this team needs another offensive weapon and I'd prefer we spend that extra draft capital to make that happen. Whether that's Nabers, or MHJ I'm indifferent but I do think MHJ will have a lot of success for a long time in this league.

 

I've always loved Ballard's strategy of acquiring picks and players. I've never criticized him for that and have celebrated it. This is the year to move up and get a play maker. We will not be picking this high next year regardless if it's Flacco or AR at QB. 

 

If there is a guy they really like, let's take the chance. They need to do whatever they possibly can to help AR be successful.

 

In reality what will most likely happen is they stay put or trade back. They wait and see how AR does this year with the current roster and re-evaluate their go/no-go strategy for next season. I'm not completely opposed to this but I think they are good enough this year to be a playoff team as is. Add a weapon and you can create some magic.

 

I have macro, philosophical pushback, which is basically covered in this article:

• "The draft is an absolute petri dish for every cognitive bias underneath the sun."
• "Teams massively overestimate their abilities to delineate between stars and flops, and because of that they overvalue the 'right to choose' in the draft."
• "'I firmly do not believe you trade a high pick, which is going to be a difference-maker, in order to pick up two picks,' he (Polian) said.
  • "But that's the issue, one former NFL executive pointed out. That logic assumes the player you're initially picking will actually become a difference-maker."
  • "'The problem for everyone in sports is that nobody wants to admit how random and arbitrary it is,' the former NFL executive said. 'Admitting that it's arbitrary takes away from your specific abilities.'"

So my pushback is that talking yourself into a specific player is inherently risky. Ask the Panthers. Doesn't mean you can't be right, but I think if you analyze the results of trade-ups for prospects, there's no consistent success. You can tell me all day long that MHJ and Nabers are the best prospects of the last five years -- and I don't necessarily disagree -- but the truth is that no one really knows what they'll become in the NFL. And the way we talk about our favorite prospects doesn't accurately reflect that reality. We're all guilty at times of talking about these guys like they're locks, but history tells us that anyone can bust, at any spot in the draft.

 

My more specific pushback is that I think the way this year's draft is expected to go at the top will result in the Colts still having a great menu of options available at #15, and they can still get a prospect they really like who has playmaker potential without trading up. Especially if you're eyeing a WR. So as much as I would love to have one of the top three receivers, I don't see the value in moving up this year. (And I'll admit a personal bias: I love Brian Thomas Jr, and think we'd be in great shape if we drafted him at #15.)

 

Edit: To the point of trying to support the QB with offensive playmakers, I'd rather see us trade #15 for an established player than to use #15 plus two more highly valuable picks to draft a question mark. He's probably not the right fit, but you can probably get Aiyuk for that pick. Or go crazy and give up the package you're suggesting we use for MHJ to trade for CeeDee Lamb. I'm all for supporting the QB, but if we're going to sacrifice major draft capital, go after a proven player.

[ADnum1]

58 minutes ago, Dobbinblitz said:

Interesting that the latest PFF mock has moved CB Mitchell to the 22nd pick, and DE Turner to the 23rd pick in the draft. They predict Verse is the first DE off the board to the Falcons at #8, and Arnold as the first CB off the board to the raiders at #13. PFF, like may other mocks PFF has Bowers to the Jets at #10 and Dejean to the Colts as the 2nd CB off the board. They have 4 QB's taken before the Colts pick. WR's - Harrison #4, Nabors #6, Odunze #11

 

Seems to be much more noise this year about the number of teams possibly moving their position in round one than in years past; with a rarity, the Colts among them. Sure, it is all just speculation. but also a little more interesting this year. 

That would be a typical Falcon move... Lol !

 

Verse is a nice player but to me you absolutely take the player from Alabama who's a one man wrecking crew.

 

The SEC is a much tougher conference as well.  No disrespect to FSU which is playing in a much softer conference.

 

However, if the Falcons bit on Verse, Turner could fall to 15.

[richard pallo]

6 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

That would be a typical Falcon move... Lol !

 

Verse is a nice player but to me you absolutely take the player from Alabama who's a one man wrecking crew.

 

The SEC is a much tougher conference as well.  No disrespect to FSU which is playing in a much softer conference.

 

However, if the Falcons bit on Verse, Turner could fall to 15.

Move up.  With no regrets.  

[cjwhiskers]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I have macro, philosophical pushback, which is basically covered in this article:

• "The draft is an absolute petri dish for every cognitive bias underneath the sun."
• "Teams massively overestimate their abilities to delineate between stars and flops, and because of that they overvalue the 'right to choose' in the draft."
• "'I firmly do not believe you trade a high pick, which is going to be a difference-maker, in order to pick up two picks,' he (Polian) said.
  • "But that's the issue, one former NFL executive pointed out. That logic assumes the player you're initially picking will actually become a difference-maker."
  • "'The problem for everyone in sports is that nobody wants to admit how random and arbitrary it is,' the former NFL executive said. 'Admitting that it's arbitrary takes away from your specific abilities.'"

So my pushback is that talking yourself into a specific player is inherently risky. Ask the Panthers. Doesn't mean you can't be right, but I think if you analyze the results of trade-ups for prospects, there's no consistent success. You can tell me all day long that MHJ and Nabers are the best prospects of the last five years -- and I don't necessarily disagree -- but the truth is that no one really knows what they'll become in the NFL. And the way we talk about our favorite prospects doesn't accurately reflect that reality. We're all guilty at times of talking about these guys like they're locks, but history tells us that anyone can bust, at any spot in the draft.

 

My more specific pushback is that I think the way this year's draft is expected to go at the top will result in the Colts still having a great menu of options available at #15, and they can still get a prospect they really like who has playmaker potential without trading up. Especially if you're eyeing a WR. So as much as I would love to have one of the top three receivers, I don't see the value in moving up this year. (And I'll admit a personal bias: I love Brian Thomas Jr, and think we'd be in great shape if we drafted him at #15.)

 

Edit: To the point of trying to support the QB with offensive playmakers, I'd rather see us trade #15 for an established player than to use #15 plus two more highly valuable picks to draft a question mark. He's probably not the right fit, but you can probably get Aiyuk for that pick. Or go crazy and give up the package you're suggesting we use for MHJ to trade for CeeDee Lamb. I'm all for supporting the QB, but if we're going to sacrifice major draft capital, go after a proven player.

 

Thank you for sharing the snippets and I appreciate the perspective.

 

If one thing is clear, the reason trading back works is because the draft is an absolute crap shoot. That dynamic can support both arguments in my opinion. e.g. more picks = higher chance of getting a difference maker or selling picks isn't that big of a deal because what you're giving away may not be actually worth much anyway. It can play both ways.

 

If the team has done their due diligence on a player and truthfully has confidence I'm all for going after him, even if it turns out they are wrong. I want to be clear and say I'm not recommending we give up the farm. Hypothetically if this team makes playoffs which would be the expectation, the pick we are selling (assuming it takes a 1 next year) isn't going to be very high to begin with.

 

Ballard did it with JT...worked out pretty well. I know that wasn't a massive trade up but still the point is, they see a player they like and they go and get him.

 

To your other point, I would not necessarily be opposed going after a proven play maker like Aiyuk either. Very Buckner esque trade. However, you're then passing up on the salary cap savings + unknown NFL potential for a proven commodity and draft capital. What's worth more is really dependent on who you ask clearly.

 

It goes back to risk and not one size fits all.  Both strategies can work and both require quite a bit of luck. Seeing where this team is at, where the NFL is going rules wise and the recent examples of QB's skyrocketting after getting a special playmaker, I just think that's what would be best at this time. 

 

Not for nothing, we've done the trade back thing time and time again and people still constantly complain about our roster not being good. It will be fun to see what Chris does next week and how much if at all he's influenced by Shane/Irsay/etc.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, ShuteAt168 said:

Fascinating article. The analysis says trading back is the way to go. It quotes Polian as saying he hated trading back. An interesting part is when an NFL executive said it’s usually not a “all for one” approach because the OC wants his guy, the DC wants his guy etc. You’d be surprised how the sausage gets made. 

 

Yeah, it was a really good article. One takeaway from me was that it should be obvious why the Browns were (are?) a mess for so long. They weren't aligned, didn't adhere to any principles, indications are they had competing priorities, etc. The Manziel anecdote and the conclusion off of it are pretty telling.

[Stephen]

If the defensive  player we pick doesn't have a rookie season like Dwight freeney or darious Leonard I don't  want them at 15. Who ever we pick needs to be an immediate impact player. I know Brian thomas jr, odunze, Harrison  or nabors  can be that. Not sure about any of the edge guys or cbs

[Stephen]

6 hours ago, CoachLite said:

It's amazing how two people can watch the same thing and come to very different conclusions. Last year, the Colts defense was mediocre at best.

Defense  played well enough  to win if AR wasn't  hurt. The real issue is when pittman  is out pierce failed to step up and Josh downs disappeared  after a strong start.

[Dobbinblitz]

Today, NFL.com writer Schrager projects Colts move six slots up in a trade with Chicago, and selects LSU's Nabers.

The Cost - a future 2nd.

[Stephen]

7 hours ago, Yoshinator said:

I actually think the 1st round is the only round where EDGE wouldn't be a reach. I see the class as much weaker throughout the draft as it goes on. Kneeland would be a great get in the 2nd if he fell, but that'd be a huge risk if we wanted an EDGE. We'll see where Ballard has his big board ranked. I think Quinyon Mitchell would be the dream pick, but the draft is deep at CB as well. 

 

Just remember, Paye and Dayo are FAs at the end of the season, so we could definitely take a successor to one of them.

The go edge next year. Get Richardson  some legit play makers that match his arm talent.

[Stephen]

21 hours ago, Dobbinblitz said:

Yep it’s a good debate for sure. I just hate seeing the run game stifled in part due to a lack of a deep threat. And, this coming from a guy who loves defense first.

The other thing to consider  let's  say we draft the best cb on the Board.  Gusts Bradley  is probably  playing  them 10 yards off the wr and they will be making  tackles after the catch for a first down so unless Bradley  has a change  in defensive philosophy  I don't  see the point in going  cb high.

[Moosejawcolt]

3 hours ago, PRnum1 said:

Latu may be available at 15 but he's not as good as Turner.

 

Turner will be taken by the Falcons at 8.

Turners is about potential. He is light and I am not sure about him holding up in the NFL. Latu is starting to intugue me. He seems game ready.

[Stephen]

8 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:

Aiyuk is awesome, but I am wondering if we would have so much of our cash tied to one position (WR)

 

I like aiyuk but feel he is more a wr 2

[csmopar]

9 hours ago, Yoshinator said:

I'm actually leaning towards Ballard going EDGE in the first round more and more now. Besides Marshawn Kneeland, there doesn't seem to be any top EDGE rushers outside the first round. I could see Ballard going Latu or Verse at 15. Then he grabs a WR and CB in either order in the 2nd and 3rd round.

I don’t think we’ll address the DL at all in rounds 1-4. I think we’re happy with who we have currently and will give the new DL coach a chance to see what he thinks over the next season. 

[Stephen]

1 hour ago, Moosejawcolt said:

They r never trading up for Nabers or any receiver.

If they want to beat the Texans they will

[csmopar]

13 minutes ago, Stephen said:

If the defensive  player we pick doesn't have a rookie season like Dwight freeney or darious Leonard I don't  want them at 15. Who ever we pick needs to be an immediate impact player. I know Brian thomas jr, odunze, Harrison  or nabors  can be that. Not sure about any of the edge guys or cbs

I really don’t see that type of Defensive player in this draft. But there’s always surprises. But I agree, we’ve got to go offensive fire power this year. At least in the first. 

[Superman]

22 minutes ago, cjwhiskers said:

If one thing is clear, the reason trading back works is because the draft is an absolute crap shoot. That dynamic can support both arguments in my opinion. e.g. more picks = higher chance of getting a difference maker or selling picks isn't that big of a deal because what you're giving away may not be actually worth much anyway. It can play both ways.

 

There's a lot of analysis to be done here, IMO. I don't know all the answers, but some questions that should be addressed are what's the difference between the success rate of a first round pick and that of a second/third round pick, historically? How do you value that difference? I think I've seen stats that say first rounders are starters at a higher rate than other rounds, but is that influenced by the bias of the team that drafted the player in the first round? (Probably.) It's probably fair to say that the players taken in the first round are more likely to be difference makers than the players taken later, but I think there are position groups where the difference is negligible, and I think WR is one of them.

 

And then, if you get into a climate where everyone is selling in the first round, then the value probably flips at some point. 

 

Also, I don't necessarily think of the draft as a crap shoot. Yes, it's arbitrary, but I think some front offices are good at drafting, and some are bad at drafting; but the difference isn't as wide as general perception would indicate. And there are lots of dependent variables -- coaching, health, etc. -- that influence the outcome of each pick. 

 

I do think more picks is the way to go to maximize value. But to build the best roster? That's a different arm of the discussion. Like you said later on, we've been trading down, and we don't have a great roster. 

 

You also make a good point about the rookie contract vs trading for an established player, and that's not to be ignored. But my point is that if you're going to base your appetite for risk on your level of conviction in the player, I'd rather take the big swing on the established player than on a draft prospect, despite the difference in contract status. The ideal mix is to target a second or third year WR so you can at least get some of the rookie contract. Ballard reportedly asked for Jaylen Waddle and Christian Watson last year. 

[Dobbinblitz]

5 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Turners is about potential. He is light and I am not sure about him holding up in the NFL. Latu is starting to intugue me. He seems game ready.

The closer we are getting to the draft the more I see Turner being projected outside the top 10. Still, Latu is a gamble - he was medically retired after his sophomore season and told he would never play football again due to a neck injury, Transferred to UCLA and was eventually cleared. He just seems like the type of player who has the goods, but will fall in the draft due to health concerns.

[MikeCurtis]

23 minutes ago, Dobbinblitz said:

Today, NFL.com writer Schrager projects Colts move six slots up in a trade with Chicago, and selects LSU's Nabers.

The Cost - a future 2nd.

Hmmmm

[BProland85]

35 minutes ago, Dobbinblitz said:

Today, NFL.com writer Schrager projects Colts move six slots up in a trade with Chicago, and selects LSU's Nabers.

The Cost - a future 2nd.

What an amazing trade that would be for Indy!

[Dobbinblitz]

I know most are focused on the first round pick, but is anyone else concerned that we come out of this draft with a quality outside coverage linebacker. This is not a great draft for LB's. I think this is an enormous need for the Colts defense. 

[Solid84]

58 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I don’t think we’ll address the DL at all in rounds 1-4. I think we’re happy with who we have currently and will give the new DL coach a chance to see what he thinks over the next season. 

I think the interest in Danielle Hunter shows they are serious about adding good+ competition at DE.

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

I don’t think we’ll address the DL at all in rounds 1-4. I think we’re happy with who we have currently and will give the new DL coach a chance to see what he thinks over the next season. 

Guaranteed an edge will be drafted in the first 4 rounds 

[jvan1973]

36 minutes ago, Dobbinblitz said:

I know most are focused on the first round pick, but is anyone else concerned that we come out of this draft with a quality outside coverage linebacker. This is not a great draft for LB's. I think this is an enormous need for the Colts defense. 

Junior Colson from Michigan would be great.   3rd round maybe

[Stephen]

1 hour ago, Dobbinblitz said:

I know most are focused on the first round pick, but is anyone else concerned that we come out of this draft with a quality outside coverage linebacker. This is not a great draft for LB's. I think this is an enormous need for the Colts defense. 

If it is not there can't  force it

[Stephen]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

There's a lot of analysis to be done here, IMO. I don't know all the answers, but some questions that should be addressed are what's the difference between the success rate of a first round pick and that of a second/third round pick, historically? How do you value that difference? I think I've seen stats that say first rounders are starters at a higher rate than other rounds, but is that influenced by the bias of the team that drafted the player in the first round? (Probably.) It's probably fair to say that the players taken in the first round are more likely to be difference makers than the players taken later, but I think there are position groups where the difference is negligible, and I think WR is one of them.

 

And then, if you get into a climate where everyone is selling in the first round, then the value probably flips at some point. 

 

Also, I don't necessarily think of the draft as a crap shoot. Yes, it's arbitrary, but I think some front offices are good at drafting, and some are bad at drafting; but the difference isn't as wide as general perception would indicate. And there are lots of dependent variables -- coaching, health, etc. -- that influence the outcome of each pick. 

 

I do think more picks is the way to go to maximize value. But to build the best roster? That's a different arm of the discussion. Like you said later on, we've been trading down, and we don't have a great roster. 

 

You also make a good point about the rookie contract vs trading for an established player, and that's not to be ignored. But my point is that if you're going to base your appetite for risk on your level of conviction in the player, I'd rather take the big swing on the established player than on a draft prospect, despite the difference in contract status. The ideal mix is to target a second or third year WR so you can at least get some of the rookie contract. Ballard reportedly asked for Jaylen Waddle and Christian Watson last year. 

Given that we know that Ballard is looking for a speedy wr to pair with Richardson. Worthy is the fastest but it says in his scouting report that he takes plays off when he doesn't  get the ball. As for Adonai  and Legette  are they better than pierce? I feel pretty good about the top 4 being  better  than pierce.  Nabers. Harrison, and Odunze would easily  be the best wr on our roster. Brian thomas jr would also work wonders with Richardson arm.

[Two_pound]

I don't think Colson makes it past pick 60. When I did my mock on here I took him at 52 for us.

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, Solid84 said:

I think the interest in Danielle Hunter shows they are serious about adding good+ competition at DE.

Possible but time will tell

[Moosejawcolt]

3 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:

Hmmmm

So  Chicago is going to draft Wlliams and then give up a chance to draft Nabors so the Colts can? 

[rockywoj]

8 hours ago, adubb84 said:

Thoughts? Schrager “tends” to be the most accurate mock drafter as he has sourced information based on conversations he has. He has the Colts moving to the 9 spot to grab Nabers. I would be extremely elated. I was also like to point out that the 9 spot is best position to also possibly grab Turner and or Bowers. Don’t think it would take much. Lots of smoke going on..Feels like Ballads may finally move up this year. 9 days left! 

From latest mock draft over at NFL.com:

 

“PROJECTED TRADE WITH CHICAGO BEARS

 

Indianapolis sends Chicago a future second-round pick in order to move up six slots and pounce on Nabers, the star receiver out of LSU. In an AFC South that saw the Jaguars, Texans and Titans all aggressively attack free agency, Colts GM Chris Ballard shows he has some tricks up his sleeve, too.”

[NewColtsFan]

20 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

From latest mock draft over at NFL.com:

 

“PROJECTED TRADE WITH CHICAGO BEARS

 

Indianapolis sends Chicago a future second-round pick in order to move up six slots and pounce on Nabers, the star receiver out of LSU. In an AFC South that saw the Jaguars, Texans and Titans all aggressively attack free agency, Colts GM Chris Ballard shows he has some tricks up his sleeve, too.”

I’d put the odds at less than 1 percent.  
 

Chris Ballard is going to give up a 2 to take a top WR is this draft?    I don’t see it.   
 

I also doubt the Colts could move from 15 to 9 for just a 2, but that’s another story. 
 

I also don’t see Schrager better than Daniel Jeremiah and others.  For a non-scout he’s good, but he’s not that good.  
 

Just my opinion. 

[Moosejawcolt]

27 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

From latest mock draft over at NFL.com:

 

“PROJECTED TRADE WITH CHICAGO BEARS

 

Indianapolis sends Chicago a future second-round pick in order to move up six slots and pounce on Nabers, the star receiver out of LSU. In an AFC South that saw the Jaguars, Texans and Titans all aggressively attack free agency, Colts GM Chris Ballard shows he has some tricks up his sleeve, too.”

Texans added Diggs. They have Tell and Collins. That last game of the season highlighted thr need for a pass rush and corner play. Now more so with Diggs. Jags also have also added Ridley. If the Colts go into the season with this secondary, they will get what they deserve. 

[Stephen]

40 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Texans added Diggs. They have Tell and Collins. That last game of the season highlighted thr need for a pass rush and corner play. Now more so with Diggs. Jags also have also added Ridley. If the Colts go into the season with this secondary, they will get what they deserve. 

No rookie  is stopping diggs and ridley is with titans

[Moosejawcolt]

52 minutes ago, Stephen said:

No rookie  is stopping diggs and ridley is with titans

Diggs is a number 2 this time in his career. My point rookie or not, this cream cannot head into next year without a playmaker in the secondary. 

[NewColtsFan]

19 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Diggs is a number 2 this time in his career. My point rookie or not, this cream cannot head into next year without a playmaker in the secondary. 

You continue to make the same basic argument that so many here do.    They view young players as players who will not get better when the opposite is true.   
 

Brents should get better.  So should Jones, so should Flowers.  And the Colts are very likely to take a corner in the first 3-4 rounds.   So the secondary WILL be better.  Experience will make them better.  

[krunk]

I haven't looked at any analysis on the subject but just using the eye test I think Jones may have had a better rookie year than Rock Yasin and Yasin was drafted high in Rd 2. Yasin struggled most if not all of year 1. Jones never really looked lost out there. Depending on Flowers health I think Jones will provide quality depth. Or he will start until Flowers is ready. Again personally what I think we are looking for in this draft is depth. Somebody who can come in and provide Brent's a heavy challenge. Just like Jones is for Flowers. I also think we need to upgrade the depth at the nickel corner behind Kenny Moore. An Isaiah Rogers type guy would be nice. I do not think we are looking for some guy who is going to be given an automatic starting nod bc of his draft position sending everyone we have to the bench. How many times does the GM have to tell you guys they did not think the secondary struggles were due to bad corner play or a lack of talent? So don't be surprised if the corner we draft is not who you expected.

[Stephen]

6 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Diggs is a number 2 this time in his career. My point rookie or not, this cream cannot head into next year without a playmaker in the secondary. 

More scheme than talent. Cbs deep to play closer