Does Ballard Have the Eye for Talent?

[Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes]

Interesting F/A signings so far. No marquis names.   Favor the Allen trade. So this  will answer two  questions: whether Ballard can identify the talent that will get us deep into the play-offs  and whether Pagano and coaching staff can get from them the potential that Ballard sees in them.  

[TDewar1987]

The verdict is still out really for him as a GM. He did, however, have a hand in the Chicago Bears when they were actually good and also the Chiefs over the last few years. I'd say it's highly likely that he knows what he is doing. Time will tell though.

[Coffeedrinker]

It's not really a GMs job to have an eye for talent.  It's a GMs job to work with the coaches and coordinators and determine what traits and attributes they want in a player, then rank those items in order of importance, then have a system for grading those attributes, then being able to teach that system to the scouts so the scouts can accurate assign number values to those attributes, then evaluate and backcheck the scouts to make sure they are implementing and applying his system correctly.

 

Whether or not he is good at all that remains to be seen.

[jet1968]

He is a genius, at least compared to Grigson 

[SteelCityColt]

8 minutes ago, Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes said:

Interesting F/A signings so far. No marquis names. 

 

More seriously he seems to have a good reputation, but then again Grigson came in with a good reputation and was the golden boy of the league in 2012. Only time will tell but I like the moves thus far. They seem to indicate a longer term plan rather than fire fighting. 

 

 

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

Who can say yet?  Not me or anyone else 

[crazycolt1]

47 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

It's not really a GMs job to have an eye for talent.  It's a GMs job to work with the coaches and coordinators and determine what traits and attributes they want in a player, then rank those items in order of importance, then have a system for grading those attributes, then being able to teach that system to the scouts so the scouts can accurate assign number values to those attributes, then evaluate and backcheck the scouts to make sure they are implementing and applying his system correctly.

 

Whether or not he is good at all that remains to be seen.

It's not the job for a GM to have an eye for talent?

[Restored]

Still too early to determine if that will be true here. However, it appears his reputation in other organizations is that he does indeed have the eye for talent.

[Coffeedrinker]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

It's not the job for a GM to have an eye for talent?

Wow, I guess you showed me.

 

I explained precisely what I meant.  He's not supposed to have an eye for talent, he is supposed to have a system that analyzes traits and and translates those traits into quantifiable numbers.

 

And "eye for talent" indicates non tangible traits.  Those type of people say things like they have a gut feeling or they made that pick with their heart.  Those type of guys don't last long as GMs.

[csmopar]

57 minutes ago, Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes said:

Interesting F/A signings so far. No marquis names.   Favor the Allen trade. So this  will answer two  questions: whether Ballard can identify the talent that will get us deep into the play-offs  and whether Pagano and coaching staff can get from them the potential that Ballard sees in them.  

way, way way too early to tell.  We wont know this for another year or even two.

[crazycolt1]

4 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Wow, I guess you showed me.

 

I explained precisely what I meant.  He's not supposed to have an eye for talent, he is supposed to have a system that analyzes traits and and translates those traits into quantifiable numbers.

 

And "eye for talent" indicates non tangible traits.  Those type of people say things like they have a gut feeling or they made that pick with their heart.  Those type of guys don't last long as GMs.

It's not a point to show you.

To even say a GM don't need an eye for talent is outrageous.

[Coffeedrinker]

3 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

It's not a point to show you.

To even say a GM don't need an eye for talent is outrageous.

Ok, let me see if I can show you what I mean.

 

Define talent.

[crazycolt1]

4 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Ok, let me see if I can show you what I mean.

 

Define talent.

Ask Belichick if he don't need an eye for talent.

Ask Polian if he didn't have an eye for talent.

Those are just two examples and there is a long list of GMs that would not agree with your assessment.

Yes the GM does have a staff to help them get the information but it is them who makes the choices based on their assessment of the talent put in front of them.

[Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes]

Notice I didn't say an "eye" for talent.  I said can he "identify" talent. This is a much broader and inclusive trait that is absolutely essential as GM.  He isn't looking at trading cards to see who he wants to sign.  He is evaluating team needs in concert with his coaching & scouting staffs.  Ultimately he decides on who to sign.  That is how I broadly define "identify".  Hope that helps to clarify the original question I was raisi.ng

[buccolts]

45 minutes ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:

Who can say yet?  Not me or anyone else 

 

This attitude, sir, will get you no where with the vocal minority around here.

[Coffeedrinker]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

Ask Belichick if he don't need an eye for talent.

Ask Polian if he didn't have an eye for talent.

Those are just two examples and there is a long list of GMs that would not agree with your assessment.

Yes the GM does have a staff to help them get the information but it is them who makes the choices based on their assessment of the talent put in front of them.

I would argue that you are wrong on both your examples.

 

Polian wrote the book on scouting... literally, He had a 600+ manual on broke down every aspect of every position, it broke down what to look for when grading football intelligence, it showed what to look for when judging fluidity, strength, etc.  He didn't look for talent, he looked at hundreds of little things that indicates attributes, he scored those items and he tied that into what the coach thinks are important for his players.

 

Same thing with BB, the Colts recently signed a supposed talented LB who lost playing time with the Pats.  Did he lose time because he wasn't talented?  No, he lost time because he did portray the attributes that BB thinks are important for a LB to have.

 

So again, I'm trying to explain what I mean.  Because yes, it's a matter of semantics, but define talent.

[Coffeedrinker]

4 minutes ago, Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes said:

Notice I didn't say an "eye" for talent.  I said can he "identify" talent. This is a much broader and inclusive trait that is absolutely essential as GM.  He isn't looking at trading cards to see who he wants to sign.  He is evaluating team needs in concert with his coaching & scouting staffs.  Ultimately he decides on who to sign.  That is how I broadly define "identify".  Hope that helps to clarify the original question I was raisi.ng

The title of the thread is, "Does Ballard Have the Eye for Talent?"

 

To answer the rest, I think he does but it's too early to tell.

[Dark Superman]

He's pretty well respected around the league and did have a part in building that Chiefs defense. I think he needs to bring in his own type of guys to be successful. Hopefully he can bring in a new coach next season and get this monster finished already.

[SteelCityColt]

5 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I would argue that you are wrong on both your examples.

 

Polian wrote the book on scouting... literally, He had a 600+ manual on broke down every aspect of every position, it broke down what to look for when grading football intelligence, it showed what to look for when judging fluidity, strength, etc.  He didn't look for talent, he looked at hundreds of little things that indicates attributes, he scored those items and he tied that into what the coach thinks are important for his players.

 

Same thing with BB, the Colts recently signed a supposed talented LB who lost playing time with the Pats.  Did he lose time because he wasn't talented?  No, he lost time because he did portray the attributes that BB thinks are important for a LB to have.

 

So again, I'm trying to explain what I mean.  Because yes, it's a matter of semantics, but define talent.

 

BB's dad also wrote "the book" on scouting and you can see a lot of his thoughts and methods have been passed downwards. 

 

It's not a popular viewpoint on here but BB is someone I have a huge amount of respect for his abilities and his love of the game. Of course it helps that he has total control of the team but there's not too many I can think of that could handle that. The nearest situation in the NFL I can think of is Carroll getting to pick Schneider as his GM and you'd figure they're on the same page when it comes to their approach in evaluating players. 

[bababooey]

As long as he doesn't keep bringing in useless Philly cast offs I'm happy

[Case]

1 hour ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

More seriously he seems to have a good reputation, but then again Grigson came in with a good reputation and was the golden boy of the league in 2012. Only time will tell but I like the moves thus far. They seem to indicate a longer term plan rather than fire fighting. 

 

 

 

Several execs in the NFL questioned the grigson hire. Colleagues in Philly were shocked that grigson got a GM position. Ballard is the complete oppposite of grigson coming in. 

[SteelCityColt]

4 hours ago, MightyLucks said:

 

Several execs in the NFL questioned the grigson hire. Colleagues in Philly were shocked that grigson got a GM position. Ballard is the complete oppposite of grigson coming in. 

 

That was really one guy (Middlekauf), who ground an axe and waited till things had gone south here to speak out.  People like Howie Roseman spoke very highly of him and being an Indiana native probably didn't hurt his stock with Irsay. Thrown in he was walking into a team with cap issues, decisions to be made on Manning/Caldwell which resulted in a trip to the playoffs with a Rookie QB and HC and you can see why his stock was high.

 

Their respective professional backgrounds aren't all that different aside from Ballard had more exposure to coaching at a high level so I wouldn't say they're complete opposites on paper at all. Personality wise... well... who really knows?

 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

We actually have LBs on our team now. I'd say that's a pretty good start.

[DougDew]

IMO, he has signed the exact same types of players, stop-gap (albeit young and not old) that Grigson signed, to the same cap friendly type of contracts in case the players don't work out.

 

Yet I have heard nothing but praise for Ballard.  Go figure.

 

BTW, people make up there minds first,....then they look for facts to support the opinion, and discard the facts that don't.  Its the way the world works most of the time. 

[SteelCityColt]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

IMO, he has signed the exact same types of players, stop-gap (albeit young and not old) that Grigson signed, to the same cap friendly type of contracts in case the players don't work out.

 

Yet I have heard nothing but praise for Ballard.  Go figure.

 

BTW, people make up there minds first,....then they look for facts to support the opinion, and discard the facts that don't.  Its the way the world works most of the time. 

 

Question for you; out of the two who do you think had a worse starting position?

 

Grigson had cap issues and a very thin roster, people will argue we have a very thin roster now but Ballard does at least have cap to work with. 

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

Question for you; out of the two who do you think had a worse starting position?

 

Grigson had cap issues and a very thin roster, people will argue we have a very thin roster now but Ballard does at least have cap to work with. 

Both the roster and the cap situation is better now than it was in Grigson's first year.  IOW, Ballard has inherited a much better situation from Grigson than Grigson did from Polian. No doubt about it.

[OffensivelyPC]

His moves so far have been good, and they give the Colts plenty of flexibility.  He's signed some high motor, scrappy players.  So even if it's just a middling defense (and to be sure, it should still improve), they should be a little more fun to watch this year.  

[Coffeedrinker]

1 hour ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

BB's dad also wrote "the book" on scouting and you can see a lot of his thoughts and methods have been passed downwards. 

 

It's not a popular viewpoint on here but BB is someone I have a huge amount of respect for his abilities and his love of the game. Of course it helps that he has total control of the team but there's not too many I can think of that could handle that. The nearest situation in the NFL I can think of is Carroll getting to pick Schneider as his GM and you'd figure they're on the same page when it comes to their approach in evaluating players. 

I agree, as a coach, game plan developer, team builder, etc.  He is definitely in a league by himself.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

1 hour ago, buccolts said:

 

This attitude, sir, will get you no where with the vocal minority around here.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say? Is that bad? 

[Valpo2004]

We'll find out when the games start.

 

His overall strategy has not been bad.  Hasn't put us in the hole by signing a bunch of big name guys.  Has picked up a pick for Dwayne Allen.  Has said he wants to build through the draft.  

 

But there is strategy and there is having the eye for talent.  Grigson's strategy wasn't bad actually, it actually wasn't much different from Ballard's strategy. (Although Grigson could be criticized for not investing resources into certain positions.  OL and Pass Rush especially.  Granted he finally invested in the OL in his last draft, but the question of why it took so long remains.)  But Grigson also lacked the eye for talent in many cases.  Werner, Richardson, Dorsett.  That's a lot of years of wasted first round picks. 

[buccolts]

6 minutes ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say? Is that bad? 

No, you were correct, but we both know that won't stop some from being critical of every move.

[TKnight24]

3 hours ago, Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes said:

Interesting F/A signings so far. No marquis names.   Favor the Allen trade. So this  will answer two  questions: whether Ballard can identify the talent that will get us deep into the play-offs  and whether Pagano and coaching staff can get from them the potential that Ballard sees in them.  

Helped build the Chiefs who are a playoff team & SB contender if they just upgraded from Alex Smith, enough said 

[Coffeedrinker]

1 hour ago, MightyLucks said:

 

Several execs in the NFL questioned the grigson hire. Colleagues in Philly were shocked that grigson got a GM position. Ballard is the complete oppposite of grigson coming in. 

No they didn't.  One guy did and he was not an exec, he was a former scout at Philly.  And initially he talked about how great Grigs would be in Indy.

[Coffeedrinker]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

IMO, he has signed the exact same types of players, stop-gap (albeit young and not old) that Grigson signed, to the same cap friendly type of contracts in case the players don't work out.

 

Yet I have heard nothing but praise for Ballard.  Go figure.

 

BTW, people make up there minds first,....then they look for facts to support the opinion, and discard the facts that don't.  Its the way the world works most of the time. 

Most people(fans on this board) did nothing but praise Grigson for his signings in his first 3 years.  So it's areally no different.

 

And yes it's because of the last part of your post.  Ballard is doing a good job because he is getting rid of guys Grigson brought in and signing different guys.

 

Grigson did a good job because he got rid of guys Polian brought in and signed different guys.

 

Polian did a good job because he got rid of Tobin's brought in and signed different guys.

 

Then Polian did a good job because he got rid of guys that Mora wanted and brought in guys that Dungy wanted.

 

IMO, it's kind of like treating someone with respect... You treat everyone with respect until they prove they do not deserve it.  You treat a GM like he knows what he is doing until he proves he doesn't.

[SteelCityColt]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Both the roster and the cap situation is better now than it was in Grigson's first year.  IOW, Ballard has inherited a much better situation from Grigson than Grigson did from Polian. No doubt about it.

 

See I'm inclined to agree but I find myself feeling more confident in Ballard. Maybe I'm forgetting the giddiness of 2012. Again all I can describe it as is that with Grigson it felt from start to finish he was knee jerking trying to patch a leaky ship without any long term plan, while Ballard seems to have a clear long term philosophy. Somewhat unfair on Grigson as for 2012/2013 we certainly did need to slap some filler in the holes and hope it held. 

 

[lollygagger8]

If Ballard doesn't have an eye for talent, he's in the wrong job. 

 

[lollygagger8]

 

That's who drafted him 

[Coffeedrinker]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Both the roster and the cap situation is better now than it was in Grigson's first year.  IOW, Ballard has inherited a much better situation from Grigson than Grigson did from Polian. No doubt about it.

Cap situation is better.  I'm not sure about the roster.  Especially when you look at Grigson was handed Luck.

 

But Grigson just did not do a good job of evaluating the roster.  He got rid of Hughes who plays very well for Buffalo, he got rid of Wheeler who plays significant snaps for the Falcons, he got rid of Bethea who played very well for the 49ers.  He got rid of Freeney who, even with getting older, still provided more QB pressures than most full time players.  Not that I blame Grigs solely for getting rid of those guys, I know there were other circumstances and maybe the coach told him they didn't fit into his scheme.  My point is just the team had talent on both sides of the ball and Grigs got rid of some of that talent. 

 

Grigs did leave Ballard with a better offense than when Grigs took over and while the D has some potential players on there, the D is in much worse shape than when Grigs took over.

[OLD FAN MAN]

1 hour ago, lollygagger8 said:

If Ballard doesn't have an eye for talent, he's in the wrong job. 

 

i concur

[SteelCityColt]

13 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Cap situation is better.  I'm not sure about the roster.  Especially when you look at Grigson was handed Luck.

 

But Grigson just did not do a good job of evaluating the roster.  He got rid of Hughes who plays very well for Buffalo, he got rid of Wheeler who plays significant snaps for the Falcons, he got rid of Bethea who played very well for the 49ers.  He got rid of Freeney who, even with getting older, still provided more QB pressures than most full time players.  Not that I blame Grigs solely for getting rid of those guys, I know there were other circumstances and maybe the coach told him they didn't fit into his scheme.  My point is just the team had talent on both sides of the ball and Grigs got rid of some of that talent. 

 

Grigs did leave Ballard with a better offense than when Grigs took over and while the D has some potential players on there, the D is in much worse shape than when Grigs took over.

 

I'll keep making this point but Hughes had made it clear he had issues with being in Indy going back to even before Grigson's time. He had no motivation at all to play for us. 

 

Freeney didn't exactly play well in his one and only season under Grigson, but I agree it was a mistake to not make an offer at the very least. 

 

Bethea I'd have retained but Grigson put his eggs fully in the Landry basket.