ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum   ColtFreaks.com Home Page

Go Back   ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-02-2018, 01:05 PM
sherck's Avatar
sherck sherck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 3,746
Thanks: 1,780
Thanked 1,189 Times in 523 Posts
Default

Agreed, Chaka.

I think that is highly probably that 4 QBs will be taken in the top 5 and that it is possible (but unlikely) that all 5 top picks will be QB.

I see it very possible that someone will want to trade into the #4 spot for QB so that CLE may not pick there. If someone does, then it will be for QB.

DEN is actually the wildcard in my thinking. If 4 QBs are already off the board and the one who is left is actually their #5 guy, then I could see them going with the best non-QB pick whomever that is in their book.

But, I think the top 4 picks will be QB because I think the package soemone will offer CLE for #4 will be too good to pass up.

Which then, hopefully, gives us our pick of whomever of the top non-QBs we like or the ability to drop a spot or two to get another 2nd round pick by being willing to "give up" on Barkley or Chubb. Trading down to 7 or 8 or 9 would not be the end of the world and still able to get one of Chubb, Nelson, Barkley or Edmunds/Smith. Or Fitzpatrick. Or the CB.

Draft day is going to be wild.

Walk Worthy,
__________________
==============
Thad
The future is so bright; I gotta triple up!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sherck For This Useful Post:
Racehorse (04-02-2018)
  #12  
Old 04-02-2018, 01:54 PM
Dam8610 Dam8610 is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 5,995
Thanks: 102
Thanked 1,595 Times in 925 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
Certainly possible, but we know Ballard isn't so enthralled with Chubb that he wasn't willing to trade down and reduce the chance that he would get him. This fuels the theory that he might not even take Chubb if he's available. Then again, he was paid a king's ransom to move down a few spots, so maybe it was worth the risk even if he loves the Chubb. Either way, I don't see Ballard as a "turn in the card right away" kind of guy - I think he'll see what's out there trade-wise before selecting his player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369 View Post
I’m not convinced Chubb is “Ballard’s Guy”. If he was I don’t see the trade back. That doesn’t mean he won’t take him if he’s there. It just means I think he’s simply one of 4 non QBs Ballard is comfortable with. And I don’t think we have any idea of the order of those players. I think us fans are more enamored with Chubb than Ballard is.
That's called smart GMing, reading the field, and being willing to take calculated, intelligent risks. The first five picks are:

1) Cleveland Browns
2) New York Giants
3) New York Jets
4) Cleveland Browns
5) Denver Broncos

The common thread of these teams is they ALL need a franchise QB. Cleveland has had a void there since coming back into existence, Eli Manning is 37, the Jets best QB in recent memory is Chad Pennington, and the Broncos have been on the hunt to replace Peyton for four years now. Of course, Cleveland has 2 top 5 picks, but they're also enamored with Saquon Barkley and they just invested in DE. If they don't trade down, Barkley or Fitzpatrick is their pick at 4. Let's say they do trade down, though, say Buffalo gives them enough that they pull the trigger, and Buffalo gets QB4, leaving Denver on the outside looking in. Denver isn't going to draft Chubb, they have two first round picks at the position and a solid player in Shaquil Barrett. They likely take Nelson, Fitzpatrick, or Smith. Any way you look at it, the first team in the draft whose foremost need is a premier pass rusher is still the Colts. Ballard knows he needs a top pass rusher and knows this is his spot to get one, but he's smart enough to know where he needs to be to accomplish that as well. He traded to the lowest spot he could while still being reasonably assured he'd get Chubb (Tampa will take him at 7 if he's still there) and got a lot of value out of the deal. This was smart dealmaking and smart team building by Ballard.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by omahacolt View Post
i was wrong.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Dam8610 For This Useful Post:
Oldcolt (04-03-2018), Racehorse (04-02-2018), sherck (04-02-2018), VeveJones007 (04-02-2018)
  #13  
Old 04-02-2018, 02:32 PM
Chaka's Avatar
Chaka Chaka is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 859
Thanks: 337
Thanked 667 Times in 286 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sherck View Post
Agreed, Chaka.

I think that is highly probably that 4 QBs will be taken in the top 5 and that it is possible (but unlikely) that all 5 top picks will be QB.

I see it very possible that someone will want to trade into the #4 spot for QB so that CLE may not pick there. If someone does, then it will be for QB.

DEN is actually the wildcard in my thinking. If 4 QBs are already off the board and the one who is left is actually their #5 guy, then I could see them going with the best non-QB pick whomever that is in their book.

But, I think the top 4 picks will be QB because I think the package soemone will offer CLE for #4 will be too good to pass up.

Which then, hopefully, gives us our pick of whomever of the top non-QBs we like or the ability to drop a spot or two to get another 2nd round pick by being willing to "give up" on Barkley or Chubb. Trading down to 7 or 8 or 9 would not be the end of the world and still able to get one of Chubb, Nelson, Barkley or Edmunds/Smith. Or Fitzpatrick. Or the CB.

Draft day is going to be wild.

Walk Worthy,
Agreed Denver's something of a wild card. Peter King wrote this morning that a "friend" of Cleveland GM Dorsey says the Browns want to take Barkley at #4. If this is true, Cleveland should try to trade down with Denver, so they can pick up Barkley at #5 - that would be a real coup for them.

As far as the number of QBs, five would be a real shock, but who knows? Maybe the QB-less teams will panic. If the Colts want to take someone at #6 (rather than trade down further), that would be a dream scenario. This will be a fun draft to watch.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-02-2018, 02:37 PM
Chaka's Avatar
Chaka Chaka is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 859
Thanks: 337
Thanked 667 Times in 286 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 View Post
That's called smart GMing, reading the field, and being willing to take calculated, intelligent risks. The first five picks are:

1) Cleveland Browns
2) New York Giants
3) New York Jets
4) Cleveland Browns
5) Denver Broncos

The common thread of these teams is they ALL need a franchise QB. Cleveland has had a void there since coming back into existence, Eli Manning is 37, the Jets best QB in recent memory is Chad Pennington, and the Broncos have been on the hunt to replace Peyton for four years now. Of course, Cleveland has 2 top 5 picks, but they're also enamored with Saquon Barkley and they just invested in DE. If they don't trade down, Barkley or Fitzpatrick is their pick at 4. Let's say they do trade down, though, say Buffalo gives them enough that they pull the trigger, and Buffalo gets QB4, leaving Denver on the outside looking in. Denver isn't going to draft Chubb, they have two first round picks at the position and a solid player in Shaquil Barrett. They likely take Nelson, Fitzpatrick, or Smith. Any way you look at it, the first team in the draft whose foremost need is a premier pass rusher is still the Colts. Ballard knows he needs a top pass rusher and knows this is his spot to get one, but he's smart enough to know where he needs to be to accomplish that as well. He traded to the lowest spot he could while still being reasonably assured he'd get Chubb (Tampa will take him at 7 if he's still there) and got a lot of value out of the deal. This was smart dealmaking and smart team building by Ballard.
Agree with you on the apparent motivations of each of these teams, and I certainly agree that Ballard is taking a calculated risk by trading down (whether he's targeting Chubb or someone else). The Giants could conceivably be interested in Chubb given their recent trade of JPP but, as I mentioned above, I just can't see them holding on the #2 pick in the face of a Jets-like offer unless they are targeting a QB (or, I suppose, if they have reason to believe that another team will top the offer)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-02-2018, 04:15 PM
VeveJones007 VeveJones007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,111
Thanks: 1,209
Thanked 1,114 Times in 612 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesusChrist View Post
They would be fools to not try to get another franchise passer to take over for a 37 year old Eli.
Amen
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-02-2018, 05:32 PM
Chromeburn's Avatar
Chromeburn Chromeburn is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,253
Thanks: 1,407
Thanked 3,582 Times in 2,004 Posts
Default

The Giants reportedly want Sam Darnold. If he is there they will likely take him. If he isn't they will trade or likely take Chubb or Barkley. Barkley for instant impact or Chubb as the best overal defensive player. Now if they want more of an EDGE I can see them taking OO from oklahoma in the second.

Overall I think dues to trades and teams moving I think 4 QB's are going in the top 6.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-02-2018, 05:54 PM
rm1369 rm1369 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,074
Thanks: 287
Thanked 730 Times in 404 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 View Post
That's called smart GMing, reading the field, and being willing to take calculated, intelligent risks.............Ballard knows he needs a top pass rusher and knows this is his spot to get one, but he's smart enough to know where he needs to be to accomplish that as well. He traded to the lowest spot he could while still being reasonably assured he'd get Chubb (Tampa will take him at 7 if he's still there) and got a lot of value out of the deal. This was smart dealmaking and smart team building by Ballard.
Not sure if my comment came off as a criticism of Ballard, but it certainly wasn’t meant to be. I don’t at all agree with his work in free agency, but that doesn’t mean I dislike him completely or disagree with everything he is doing. The trade back was a great move IMO whether Chubb makes it to 6 or not. I’m just not nearly as convinced as you seem to be that 1) Chubb will make it to 6, or 2) that he is Ballard’s guy and ultimate target. I simply think Ballard has a top tier of 4 players and he will gladly take any of them. Or move back if someone offers enough value to do so. I don’t at all believe he is married to any specific player. Not enough for them to be considered “Ballard’s guy”. Which to me is smart - especially considering I think he is looking long term in the rebuild. I don’t believe he feels he has to have a pass rusher next year because I think he knows the roster isn’t going to contend next year anyway. He will take whomever he thinks will ultimately be the best player. Which is why I think Edmunds may very well be the mystery 4th player. And to me, whoever that mystery player is should be considered “Ballard’s guy” as it appears he’s elevated them in to the top tier along with the consensus big 3 - Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-02-2018, 06:06 PM
rm1369 rm1369 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,074
Thanks: 287
Thanked 730 Times in 404 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn View Post
The Giants reportedly want Sam Darnold. If he is there they will likely take him. If he isn't they will trade or likely take Chubb or Barkley. Barkley for instant impact or Chubb as the best overal defensive player. Now if they want more of an EDGE I can see them taking OO from oklahoma in the second.

Overall I think dues to trades and teams moving I think 4 QB's are going in the top 6.
This is why I’m not convinced 4 or more QBs will go in the top 5. It depends on how the teams evaluate them and how they come off the board. Would you trade significant draft capital for the 4th rated QB on your board? Sounds like a damn good way to get fired if you ask me. Denver is a prime example. Yes they need a QB for the long by haul but do you really think they have a top half first round grade on 4-5 of these QBs? I don’t. They will take one if a guy they rank highly is there, but they aren’t going to grab whatever is leftover just because fans and media think they should. And someone trading up is the same if not worse. It’s possible they fall in a way that everyone gets a guy they believe in, but I don’t see GMs staking their jobs on a move up for their 4th or 5th choice.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-02-2018, 06:31 PM
Chaka's Avatar
Chaka Chaka is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 859
Thanks: 337
Thanked 667 Times in 286 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369 View Post
This is why I’m not convinced 4 or more QBs will go in the top 5. It depends on how the teams evaluate them and how they come off the board. Would you trade significant draft capital for the 4th rated QB on your board? Sounds like a damn good way to get fired if you ask me. Denver is a prime example. Yes they need a QB for the long by haul but do you really think they have a top half first round grade on 4-5 of these QBs? I don’t. They will take one if a guy they rank highly is there, but they aren’t going to grab whatever is leftover just because fans and media think they should. And someone trading up is the same if not worse. It’s possible they fall in a way that everyone gets a guy they believe in, but I don’t see GMs staking their jobs on a move up for their 4th or 5th choice.
But here's the rub - not everyone agrees who the 4th or 5th QB choice is. For example, if Baker Mayfield is left after 3 other QBs have been taken, it's likely that someone has him more highly rated on their board. Hence, while you're correct that Denver might not take him if they don't view him as elite, someone else (or several someone elses) might be willing to trade into Denver's slot to grab him. And they'll think they got a bargain for doing so. Without a trade, I'd agree that 4 QBs being taken in the first five is unlikely. But there's nearly always a trade when QBs are up for grabs, so I don't think that a no-trade scenario is likely.

By way of example, the Jets just traded significant draft capital to the Colts just for the opportunity to take whoever is left after the first two picks have been selected. And they don't even know who they might get to choose from. These QB-needy teams are desperate, and I think the success of last year's QB crop is fueling this somewhat

Last edited by Chaka; 04-02-2018 at 06:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-02-2018, 07:20 PM
Maniac's Avatar
Maniac Maniac is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Home
Posts: 1,772
Thanks: 782
Thanked 1,304 Times in 712 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
But there's nearly always a trade when QBs are up for grabs, so I don't think that a no-trade scenario is likely.

By way of example, the Jets just traded significant draft capital to the Colts just for the opportunity to take whoever is left after the first two picks have been selected. And they don't even know who they might get to choose from. These QB-needy teams are desperate, and I think the success of last year's QB crop is fueling this somewhat
As you just mentioned, there has already been a trade (Jets and Colts) so it's not a no-trade scenario anymore. There is definitely a chance of there being another one on draft day though.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ColtFreaks.com is in no way affiliated with the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, or any of their subsidiaries.