dubs

Agreed. Not cool! ?

Why would I click through for things I already know? They have a lot of projected cap space available, they could get more. More is better. Luck’s college draft profile isn’t that useful of a data point now. The other draft profiles are useful, but you don’t know what the Colts draft profile of these QBs are and that’s all that really matters. Its not complicated. It’s also not likely to happen. But I don’t think its insane for the Colts to make a trade involving luck. The primary issue is you need two GMs with tons of conviction and fortitude. And get them to agree on a price. Today’s NFL is highly devoid of that.

I strongly disagree with this statement. As as I outlined earlier, there are lots of reasons this makes sense for both parties. The biggest hurdles, in my opinion, would be: - fear factor: Ballard being second guessed - do the Colts love a QB coming out that they think they can get (say Mayfield) - trade terms

They would save 5 in ‘18, but 14, 22, and 21 in the subsequent 3 years. They would acquire a couple more picks in this and possible next years draft. I think it’s possible and that the colts would be smart to consider it. As an aside, I do sincerely appreciate the well thought out response. Reason I don’t come to the board very often anymore is how infested it’s become with snark, etc...

It’s also not just about the shoulder. It’s about what QBs are in the draft, what you can get for Luck, and the cap space you can clear.

Anytime you can introduce some snark to a conversation, you gotta do it. But seriously though, I don’t think the price would be as high as people think. If the colts have any concerns at all about luck, this is about their only chance to reboot. Certainly worth considering from their end.

Concerns, yes. But that’s not to say the shoulder wouldn’t be fine. Just a risk and different people assess the risk differently. Honestly, if I’m the colts and the Bills offer me 22 and a second for Luck. I say where do I sign.

I actually agree with much of this. From the Colts perspective, it’s actually an optimal time to do this. They can free the cap space, grab a new franchise QB on rookie pay scale, rid themselves of any shoulder concerns, and pick up a couple draft picks to fill more holes. From the Bills perspective, they keep more of their draft picks than if they were trading up to top 3 and can handle the cap hit. And get a proven commodity. I actually think the price to make this happen wouldn’t be too expensive and a huge win win for both teams.

It’s very impressive what Beane has done. I hope we can sign McCarron to a 3 year deal for low end starter/high end backup money. Play him in ‘18 and Darnold (or whomever we draft) in ‘19. AJ gets a chance to start for a year. He plays great, super tradeable asset. If not, he’s a capable backup.

It’s very impressive what Beane has done. I hope we can sign McCarron to a 3 year deal for low end starter/high end backup money. Play him in ‘18 and Darnold (or whomever we draft) in ‘19. AJ gets a chance to start for a year. He plays great, super tradeable asset. If not, he’s a capable backup.

Nice!

Jeffismagic

Great insight.

Thats what I think it would take. Just one mans opinion. And, probably only happens if the Browns take Barkley. Again, just a guess on my part

Hughes, Glenn, 21, next years 1, and a two this year. That would be my guess...

Um, if that happened that would be the biggest no brainer in the history of drafts. I highly doubt the giants would do that. We’d need to throw in at least another 1. I would think anyway.

Well, if you dedicate one of the 11 to the QB running you open up the defense to the pass. As it stands, the defense did a great job. This is entirely on the offense, not even debatable.

I mean, the defense gave up 10 points, I think they did a pretty good job. The offense OTOH. Haha. Um, you do realize you don’t get to put a 12th player on the field when you “spy” someone, right?

Huh? What on earth does someone's age or race have to do with a position on punting or going for it? Nice hot take dude!

Domdab99 - seriously, what is your "math and probability" that you keep trotting out. I am asking directly because neither you nor anyone has been able to provide anything to that effect. The only thing I've seen is the 2% win decrease from punting that MAJBobby used, based on a model that doesn't factor in anything that was unique to that game (such as the weather, opposing QB, what the opposing offense needs to do to move the ball down the field in that situation, etc...) So...what's the "math"?

I am sorry to say, but you are missing the point. The premise of your point is that going for it is the equivalent of having pocket aces and punting is pocket 2s. I am saying that's unknowable. You can calculate the odds in poker, you cannot in a game with 6 inches of snow on the ground, a strong wind in one direction, a terrible offensive team on both sides of the ball, etc.... unless you can and then I am all ears because I would love to learn about it.

This is quite literally a meaningless analogy. Odds in poker are pretty well known because there's a single deck of 52 cards. Odds in this situation are completely unknown. Anything that I've seen that uses odds has a totally flawed methodology because of the extreme circumstances. Even the odds that MAJBobby used showed a 2% decrease, and that's not even an appropriate model for this situation.

I just don't understand why everything has to be so black and white. I was pissed when they went for it, psyched for it that they won but still mind boggled by the call. But as I thought through it after the fact, I really started to understand how it made sense. I just hadn't thought about it that way in the heat of the moment. I really think either way was totally defendable. That's not always the case but I think it was here.

Those things matter. I am not saying you're wrong to want him to go for it. I am just saying it's not scientific like you are trying to make it out to be and it certainly wasn't an obvious call one way or another. The rationale for punting in that situation is actually pretty reasonable, just as going for it would have been.

This is the part of the argument that holds absolutely no water. You are using an ESPN simulation that dropped about 2% and has NOTHING to do with this actual game, these conditions, these players, etc... So basically you are digging your heels in because of a flawed model that shows a 2% decrease in win percentage.