Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. Despite Dak's struggles last year, I'm pretty happy with the way that trade DIDN'T work out.
You suggested they just wanted assets. I'm stating you can acquire assets and still achieve a targeted goal.
And sometimes you have to be good to be lucky. That is what the draft is all about. You got to be lucky to get great players late but good enough in scouting to have that opportunity happen.
Read back to what I quoted. He said the Colts likely wanted to trade back to target Barkley. I said if they were specifically targeting a specific player they don't ever trade back. Hedging value with multiple quality options was not what we were talking about.
Now being happy with Barkley, or Chubb or Nelson at 6 for example while expecting 3 QBs going in advance would be a different thing all together and is a acquiring assets and pretty much guaranteeing to achieve that targeted goal.
lol, I read your post and commented on the ability to acquire assets and still get desired value. You certainly have your dander up today.
It wasn't specifically targeting him. I think the Colts want Barkley, Nelson or Chubb (not necessarily in that order). What I am saying is he makes a lot more sense at #6 then he does at #3 financially speaking.
I felt that was the case, which was what I said my last post and what Tim was alluding from the start. I was just saying that if it was one specific guy like was said simply, then you don't trade behind the Browns.
Well with Barkley you are looking at a Leveon Bell situation down the road. By paying him that much now you almost guarantee you are paying him an absurd amount of money later. But at least with Barkley it's a player that puts points on the board and can contribute to all facets of the offense and even special teams if you are crazy enough to let him. A guard? Sure I need protection up the gut and a clean pocket but John Jerry is a fine pass blocker, John Greco does a good enough job -- both those guys are cheap. And frankly it's a position I would rather pay for a proven commodity than drafting the next "generational" guard who looked great in college and burns out in the pro's. Not saying that Nelson will be that but the "experts" always find these O-lineman and latch onto them as safe and future all pro's. I can get a guy who projects to be an excellent LG in R2 why am I paying a fortune in draft capital for Nelson and all but guaranteeing that if he doesn't stink he will break the bank for guard contracts? I'll end my rant here. Both Nelson and Barkley are amazing prospects -- there is no denying that fact. But I believe in positional value playing a role in evaluations and neither guy has that at #2 overall.
Elliott and Fournette, with help from Bell have already set things in motion well before his contract is up.
