f.... Colts' chances of drafting Bradley Chubb impacted after Giants trade

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by sherck

I agree.

Now, Nelson + 3 2nd round picks is a pretty nice consolidation prize for Chubb if that happens. If not Nelson, then I hope that we can trade down again and target Edmunds or Smith at LB. Both have the athleticism to be our Brian Urlacher for the next decade.

I’d prefer the trade down for Edmunds or Smith. 6 is better than 3, but I still don’t like taking a guard there. That high you want a player that impacts the game more than a guard does. I think Ballard’s preference would be a trade down as well assuming the value is there. I think that may be the case even if Chubb is there. I wouldn’t agree with that, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happen.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by sherck

I agree.

As much as it pains me to say it, trading for 3x 2nd round pick to drop 3 spots pretty much doomed us from getting Chubb.

Now, Nelson + 3 2nd round picks is a pretty nice consolidation prize for Chubb if that happens. If not Nelson, then I hope that we can trade down again and target Edmunds or Smith at LB. Both have the athleticism to be our Brian Urlacher for the next decade.

Walk Worthy,

Agreed about Chubb, though I think our chances may be slightly better than many think. The way I look at it, the team with the greatest likelihood of taking Chubb is the Giants, and even without our trade we couldn't have prevented that from happening. The Jets won't take him, and I kinda doubt Cleveland will either since another DE is not really a burning need for them. So I'd expect them to trade out at #4 to a team needing a QB, particularly since Denver is right behind and teams may pay a premium to jump in front of the Broncos, who many believe are also considering a QB.

Denver is a bit of a wild card I suppose, but I'm guessing that a team with that sort of history doesn't view itself as being at the top of the draft very often, and so may feel the need to seize this rare opportunity to grab a top prospect QB too. I'm not convinced the presence of Case Keenum will change this. It's only a 2 year deal after all, and the bulk of the meaningful guarantees are in the first year. And is DE a real need for them anyway?

I guess that makes 4 QBs in the first 5 picks, which I will acknowledge seems unlikely. Still, I think we get at least 3, and with the exception of the Giants, DE doesn't seem like a burning need for the teams who might not take a QB.

Bottom line, I still think there's still a decent chance that Chubb falls to us. All of this is reading tea leaves, of course, and a trade could throw everything into shambles, but it seems likely that any trade in the top 5 would need to be for a QB given the cost that would be demanded.

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Agreed about Chubb, though I think our chances may be slightly better than many think. The way I look at it, the team with the greatest likelihood of taking Chubb is the Giants, and even without our trade we couldn't have prevented that from happening. The Jets won't take him, and I kinda doubt Cleveland will either since another DE is not really a burning need for them. So I'd expect them to trade out at #4 to a team needing a QB, particularly since Denver is right behind and teams may pay a premium to jump in front of the Broncos, who many believe are also considering a QB.

Denver is a bit of a wild card I suppose, but I'm guessing that a team with that sort of history doesn't view itself as being at the top of the draft very often, and so may feel the need to seize this rare opportunity to grab a top prospect QB too. I'm not convinced the presence of Case Keenum will change this. It's only a 2 year deal after all, and the bulk of the meaningful guarantees are in the first year. And is DE a real need for them anyway?

I guess that makes 4 QBs in the first 5 picks, which I will acknowledge seems unlikely. Still, I think we get at least 3, and with the exception of the Giants, DE doesn't seem like a burning need for the teams who might not take a QB.

Bottom line, I still think there's still a decent chance that Chubb falls to us. All of this is reading tea leaves, of course, and a trade could throw everything into shambles, but it seems likely that any trade in the top 5 would need to be for a QB given the cost that would be demanded.

Agree about Chubb, but I’ll take the over on 3.5 QBs in the top 5.

[YDFL Commish]

Originally Posted by sherck

I agree.

As much as it pains me to say it, trading for 3x 2nd round pick to drop 3 spots pretty much doomed us from getting Chubb.

Now, Nelson + 3 2nd round picks is a pretty nice consolidation prize for Chubb if that happens. If not Nelson, then I hope that we can trade down again and target Edmunds or Smith at LB. Both have the athleticism to be our Brian Urlacher for the next decade.

Walk Worthy,

Trading out of the top ten greatly increases the likelihood that neither Edmunds or Smith are available.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

I’d prefer the trade down for Edmunds or Smith. 6 is better than 3, but I still don’t like taking a guard there. That high you want a player that impacts the game more than a guard does. I think Ballard’s preference would be a trade down as well assuming the value is there. I think that may be the case even if Chubb is there. I wouldn’t agree with that, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happen.

True, no guarantee Chubb will be taken even if available. Would not be a shock. Ballard did make plays for the higher profile RBs (Lewis) and OGs (Norwell and Pugh), so that could mean that he planned at address DE in the draft - or alternatively that he’s focused most intensely on RB and/or OG. Then again, it’s interesting to note that the Colts-Jets trade only went down after all those free agents signed elsewhere, so maybe Ballard figured that he could be sure to fill one of those holes by trading down to 6, and he just plans on taking whoever remains between Chubb/Nelson/Barkley. This would certainly be consistent with Irsay’s comments earlier today.

[sherck]

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish

Trading out of the top ten greatly increases the likelihood that neither Edmunds or Smith are available.

Mocks are all over on those 2 guys. For every mock that has then going in the top ten, there are 2 that have them going in the middle teens.

I would not want to trade down further than #12 for sure if they are targeting one of the LBs but I think #12 gets one of them.

Walk Worthy,

[DragonTails]

Originally Posted by rm1369

That high you want a player that impacts the game more than a guard does.

It's not eye candy impact but that's how you win in this league. Breaking off 7 yard runs instead of 2 yard runs and keeping Luck upright would be eye candy for me.

Originally Posted by DragonTails

It's not eye candy impact but that's how you win in this league. Breaking off 7 yard runs instead of 2 yard runs and keeping Luck upright would be eye candy for me.

Keeping Luck from permanent disability checks will take a huge o-line improvement.

We have a DECENT LT and a good C, oft injured but good, the rest would give up sacks to a lingerie league team

[Puck]

Originally Posted by testcase448

Keeping Luck from permanent disability checks will take a huge o-line improvement.

We have a DECENT LT and a good C, oft injured but good, the rest would give up sacks to a lingerie league team

What Ive been saying all along

Originally Posted by Puck

Stephen Holder
Stephen Holder
@HolderStephen
Reich says they'll be scheming to get the ball out quicker. "I've always been a believer in protecting the quarterback."
7:23 AM · Mar 27, 2018

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by DragonTails

It's not eye candy impact but that's how you win in this league. Breaking off 7 yard runs instead of 2 yard runs and keeping Luck upright would be eye candy for me.

Building a defense and not requiring Luck to throw 40 times a game would go a hell of a ways towards protecting him too.

The #6 pick is the second most valuable commodity the Colts have besides Luck. I don’t see guard or RB being the best use for it. I did see OL being the best use of the Colts vast amounts of cap space, but that opportunity has passed. Find an impact defender at 6 or trade down again. No guard and certainly no RB. Although it sounds increasingly likely it will be one of those two.