Does Ballard Have the Eye for Talent?

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

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.

So Ballard is churning stop gap guys for different stop gap guys.  Why does that deserve praise?  

 

Grigson got dragged under the bus the moment he signed Walden.  Got beat up for signing McGlynn (remember McGoo?), then not cutting him, despite having no salary cap with which to find an adequate starter or replacement.  

 

Grigson got rid of guys that were terribly overpaid like Clark and Brackett whereas Ballard is simply churning the backup positions so far. The only guy Ballard got rid of that Grigson wouldn't have is DA. All others either retired or Grigson likey would have gotten rid of himself.....drafted Green and Geathers to replace Adams and DQs contract was always suspect.  Replacing Kerr with Hunt is no big deal.   Cole restructured after last season, indicating he was no favorite of Grigson.

 

There is no reasonable reason why Ballard should be praised at this point for doing anything that we assume Grigson would not have done, or wouldn't have been addressed via retirements. 

 

Its what I said before.  People have made up their minds...then will look for facts to validate it and ignore the facts that don't.  Right now ballard is liked....simply because he isn't Grigson....so people will look to his signings as being factually different than Grigson's in order to validate their "like" for Ballard...when the churning of stop gap players for different stop gap players doesn't warrant it.

 

Check with me three years from now to see how his draft picks do, then there might be some basis for liking Ballard more than Grigson

[SteelCityColt]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

 

Its what I said before.  People have made up their minds...then will look for facts to validate it and ignore the facts that don't.  Right now ballard is liked....simply because he isn't Grigson....so people will look to his signings as being factually different than Grigson's in order to validate their "like" for Ballard...when the churning of stop gap players for different stop gap players doesn't warrant it.

 

Check with me three years from now to see how his draft picks do, then there might be some basis for liking Ballard more than Grigson

 

I think you make some very valid points, it is far too early to annoit/pitchfork Ballard but instant gratification and all that. 

 

The only minor counters I'd offer are that I think Simon especially is higher quality player than most credit for and I back him to start and do well for us.

 

Also Ballard can at least point at KC and his part in the turn around project there. Whereas Grigson helped oversee the Dream Team.

 

I gusss mostly I just want to live in hope he's going to improve matters and till that idea is firmly disproven I'm going with cautious optimism.

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

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. 

 

How in the world can you see evidence of a long term philosophy at this point?  

 

DQ is gone (would have been via contract structure when signed) .  Mathis retired (requiring the need to sign Sheard).  Walden's contract expires( driving the need to sign a younger replacement in Simon) .  Geathers and Green take the next step pushing Adams out.  Reitz retires requiring the signing of another OL (Schwenke).  A marginal player in Hunt replaces a marginal player in Kerr.

 

Doyle outplays DA and makes DA expendable.  

 

Other than Doyle over DA, what plan is evident other than Ballard signing younger stop-gap guys to replace older stop-gap guys who's contracts are at their end?

[1959Colts]

After the Colts hired Ballard I listened to of his several interviews.

One of the things Ballard said was, to the effect that, Ballard relies first on watching film of the players over everything else.

I believe his comment was, "The tape don't lie"

 

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

10 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

I think you make some very valid points, it is far too early to annoit/pitchfork Ballard but instant gratification and all that. 

 

The only minor counters I'd offer are that I think Simon especially is higher quality player than most credit for and I back him to start and do well for us.

 

Also Ballard can at least point at KC and his part in the turn around project there. Whereas Grigson helped oversee the Dream Team.

 

I gusss mostly I just want to live in hope he's going to improve matters and till that idea is firmly disproven I'm going with cautious optimism.

Ballard has yet to pull a Gosder Cherilus signing. Paying a guy the highest contract(iirc) for his position who has no business being that way if you watched the film and looked at some advanced stats. If he does that then he might as well be Grigson 2.0 so far lol. 

I think he'll distinguish himself greatly via the draft. He'll go ****s to the wall drafting defensive guys high. Something Grigson never did 

[Gigc]

It will be real interesting to see if we get any real production out of Mingo  and Margus Hunt. 

I thought Hunt would turn into a pretty good player a couple of years ago, but it never happened in Cincy

[#12.]

"Does Ballard Have the Eye for Talent?"

 

Impossible to say with any certainty.

 

What is possible to say with certainty: Grigson does not.

 

 

[Coffeedrinker]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

So Ballard is churning stop gap guys for different stop gap guys.  Why does that deserve praise?  

 

Grigson got dragged under the bus the moment he signed Walden.  Got beat up for signing McGlynn (remember McGoo?), then not cutting him, despite having no salary cap with which to find an adequate starter or replacement.  

 

Grigson got rid of guys that were terribly overpaid like Clark and Brackett whereas Ballard is simply churning the backup positions so far. The only guy Ballard got rid of that Grigson wouldn't have is DA. All others either retired or Grigson likey would have gotten rid of himself.....drafted Green and Geathers to replace Adams and DQs contract was always suspect.  Replacing Kerr with Hunt is no big deal.   Cole restructured after last season, indicating he was no favorite of Grigson.

 

There is no reasonable reason why Ballard should be praised at this point for doing anything that we assume Grigson would not have done, or wouldn't have been addressed via retirements. 

 

Its what I said before.  People have made up their minds...then will look for facts to validate it and ignore the facts that don't.  Right now ballard is liked....simply because he isn't Grigson....so people will look to his signings as being factually different than Grigson's in order to validate their "like" for Ballard...when the churning of stop gap players for different stop gap players doesn't warrant it.

 

Check with me three years from now to see how his draft picks do, then there might be some basis for liking Ballard more than Grigson

I'm not the one praising him nor do I think it's deserved, just explaining that people are doing the same thing they always do.

[Superman]

10 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

It's not really a GMs job to have an eye for talent.

 

I understand what you're saying, and I've read your other posts about this. I disagree, though.

 

Most GMs come from a scouting background. I would expect their resume to include some scouting trophies. In Ballard's case, he has 15 years of personnel work. I don't see how you work your way up from area scout to eventually become a GM with multiple organizations if you don't have an eye for talent.

 

And despite the fact that they're dealing with a ton of different responsibilities that come with managing a roster, managing personnel staff, and managing coaches to some extent, I can't see how a GM can be successful without watching film himself, scouting, getting to know a player's strengths and weaknesses, etc. He probably can't put his eyes on every player that makes the board, and he has to delegate, but he's got to know how to find what he needs.

 

In theory, a GM could entirely delegate personnel evaluation to his staff and focus on higher level concerns. I wouldn't want the GM of my team to do that, though. I would expect him to be an experienced talent evaluator with a strong track record, and I would want him to direct the efforts of his staff as they work their areas. Especially when my GM came up through the scouting ranks. I might have different expectations of someone like John Lynch than I do for Chris Ballard.

[throwing BBZ]

10 hours 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.

 

 And yet the first thing he did was lock everybody in together for 17 straight days to watch tape.
 Yes i am sure there was a lot of discussion about what they were seeing, but it was still EYEING the tape.
  His scouts can bring all the numbers they want, but he will still let the tape be his most important factor.
 Height, weight, speed, flexibility, intellect, character. He can draft those guys and let the coaches do their job making it work.

[OLD FAN MAN]

5 hours ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:

Ballard has yet to pull a Gosder Cherilus signing. Paying a guy the highest contract(iirc) for his position who has no business being that way if you watched the film and looked at some advanced stats. If he does that then he might as well be Grigson 2.0 so far lol. 

I think he'll distinguish himself greatly via the draft. He'll go ****s to the wall drafting defensive guys high. Something Grigson never did 

i concur

[OLD FAN MAN]

44 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I understand what you're saying, and I've read your other posts about this. I disagree, though.

 

Most GMs come from a scouting background. I would expect their resume to include some scouting trophies. In Ballard's case, he has 15 years of personnel work. I don't see how you work your way up from area scout to eventually become a GM with multiple organizations if you don't have an eye for talent.

 

And despite the fact that they're dealing with a ton of different responsibilities that come with managing a roster, managing personnel staff, and managing coaches to some extent, I can't see how a GM can be successful without watching film himself, scouting, getting to know a player's strengths and weaknesses, etc. He probably can't put his eyes on every player that makes the board, and he has to delegate, but he's got to know how to find what he needs.

 

In theory, a GM could entirely delegate personnel evaluation to his staff and focus on higher level concerns. I wouldn't want the GM of my team to do that, though. I would expect him to be an experienced talent evaluator with a strong track record, and I would want him to direct the efforts of his staff as they work their areas. Especially when my GM came up through the scouting ranks. I might have different expectations of someone like John Lynch than I do for Chris Ballard.

i agree

[DougDew]

4 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I'm not the one praising him nor do I think it's deserved, just explaining that people are doing the same thing they always do.

Both GMs seem to have the philosophy of using vet free agency to fill the gaps in the roster until a draft pick can supplant them.  It didn't work out so well with Grigson over time.  Lets hope that Ballard has a better eye for talent.....but its way too early to say one way or the other, IMO.

[Jules]

Yes because he got rid of Stone Hands and Patrick Robinson so he at least knows who is crappy.

[ReMeDy]

11 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. 

 

I will say, I was a little concerned when Grigson walked in looking like a Mafioso with his sunglasses, gold watch, chewing gum... I just had a gut feeling he was bad news and not a likable guy.

[C0LT5]

10 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

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. 

We did not get an additional pick for Allen, just moved up a couple rounds.

 

Hmmmmm, I thought he invested every year in the OL. Granted it didn't work out very well but that doesn't mean he didn't try. Sorry this revisionist history just got to me on this post and a lot of people do it not just you. If it didn't work out then Grigson didn't try to fix it. Satele, Cherilus, Thomas, Holmes, Thornton, Mewhort, Herremans, and Good he invested in to fix the OL. Boy that's a list of some bad OL, bad luck OL, and some promise in there. But Grigson did try to fix the OL, he just wasn't capable.

[funktacious2]

 

14 hours 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.

I agree in some parts to your original post about GM responsibilities. Anyone who becomes a manager anywhere probably got there because they were really good at doing the job they are now being asked to manage over, so their new position usually means they take a back seat to the work that is being done and are instead looking over shoulders of the laborers to ensuring the job is being done properly. However, ensuring their employees are doing things properly usually ensures they themselves know what the employee is supposed to be doing in the first place. Scouts make it to the NFL because they usually have proven that they have skill at evaluating talent, so no it's not the most important job of a GM, but it's still a skill they need to have.

 

Also I have a small beef with your quote above. In what way does the phrase "eye for talent" indicate non tangible traits? All the phrase means is that the person has the ability to perceive/identify the special skills a player has. Nothing about that indicates whether it means tangible or intangible, it can easily mean either or. I don't know if I understand why you feel that way.

 

 

[Buddy Lee]

It's hard to tell. KC's GM likely heard more than just Ballard's opinion on pro and college players. Which players are in KC as a result of Ballard vs. someone else in the organization is anybody's guess.

[NewColtsFan]

16 hours 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.

 

I'm hoping the confusion in this thread is mostly semantics.....

 

I think Coffeedrinker is one of our best and most important posters and he doesn't post enough for my taste....   so when he does,  I think he's earned our attention and respect.

 

That said,  I'm wondering if the confusion here is this.....

 

Is a GM looking for the best pure talent,  or is he looking for the best talent for the system that his head coach and coordinators are running?      Those two positions are not always the same.

 

Complicating matters here,  our GM didn't pick the HC,  Grigson and then Irsay did, and Ballard has inherited him.      So, does Ballard look for the best pure talent,  or the best talent for his HC and coordinators?     I think it's the the latter....

 

As Superman noted in his really strong post in this thread,  a GM has a million and one things on his daily, weekly and long-term to-do list.     But, from my perspective,  finding talent is not just Job One,  it's also jobs 1-10, and the other things fall into line after that.

 

So, whether it's the draft where the GM has final say,  or the Free Agent frenzy here in March or signing FA's after the draft and off-the street during the season,  a good GM has to know talent when he sees it and he has to trust the viewpoints of all of his scouts.     They have to all be on the same page.      

 

Talent is the life blood of the team,  you're dead without it.     A GM has to find it and acquire it.

 

Interesting thread......      

 

 

[braveheartcolt]

5 hours ago, Jules said:

Yes because he got rid of Stone Hands and Patrick Robinson so he at least knows who is crappy.

We have a winner! All we know now is that he has an eye for poor talent......and a mediocre (on paper) FA strategy. 

 

Proof. Pudding. Time.

[IinD]

His first few drafts were ok, he's gotta do better this year...oh wait...

[neug3246]

23 hours 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.

 

Then we are in trouble bc either our scouting has sucked from the previous years or there was a break in communication between the coaches/coordinators, GM, and scouts and what we were looking for with traits and attributes in any given player, or all of they above.  

[Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes]

21 hours 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.

So wrong about Grigson's cap issue.  Go back and check the records.  He had the third highest cap available in the NFL when he took over.  And then the fun began, Bjorn Woerner, TRich, Andre Johnson, Philly cast-offs and several over the hill defensive players all of whom are now gone.

[neug3246]

17 hours ago, DougDew said:

So Ballard is churning stop gap guys for different stop gap guys.  Why does that deserve praise?  

 

Grigson got dragged under the bus the moment he signed Walden.  Got beat up for signing McGlynn (remember McGoo?), then not cutting him, despite having no salary cap with which to find an adequate starter or replacement.  

 

Grigson got rid of guys that were terribly overpaid like Clark and Brackett whereas Ballard is simply churning the backup positions so far. The only guy Ballard got rid of that Grigson wouldn't have is DA. All others either retired or Grigson likey would have gotten rid of himself.....drafted Green and Geathers to replace Adams and DQs contract was always suspect.  Replacing Kerr with Hunt is no big deal.   Cole restructured after last season, indicating he was no favorite of Grigson.

 

There is no reasonable reason why Ballard should be praised at this point for doing anything that we assume Grigson would not have done, or wouldn't have been addressed via retirements. 

 

Its what I said before.  People have made up their minds...then will look for facts to validate it and ignore the facts that don't.  Right now ballard is liked....simply because he isn't Grigson....so people will look to his signings as being factually different than Grigson's in order to validate their "like" for Ballard...when the churning of stop gap players for different stop gap players doesn't warrant it.

 

Check with me three years from now to see how his draft picks do, then there might be some basis for liking Ballard more than Grigson

 

The difference between Grigson's stop gap players and Ballard's stop gap players is that Grigson overpaid for them signing them as proven vets where as Ballard is only signing them to what their actual worth is. That is why the Walden signing was looked down on and guess what he wasn't a stop gap he played his contract out. 

[Restored]

There's really only way this Grigson's vs. Ballard's players will be settled and that'll be when we see how much Ballard's players contribute to the team's success. Judging by the success that Grigson's players had (or lack thereof), it shouldn't be that hard.

[Coffeedrinker]

13 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I understand what you're saying, and I've read your other posts about this. I disagree, though.

 

Most GMs come from a scouting background. I would expect their resume to include some scouting trophies. In Ballard's case, he has 15 years of personnel work. I don't see how you work your way up from area scout to eventually become a GM with multiple organizations if you don't have an eye for talent.

 

And despite the fact that they're dealing with a ton of different responsibilities that come with managing a roster, managing personnel staff, and managing coaches to some extent, I can't see how a GM can be successful without watching film himself, scouting, getting to know a player's strengths and weaknesses, etc. He probably can't put his eyes on every player that makes the board, and he has to delegate, but he's got to know how to find what he needs.

 

In theory, a GM could entirely delegate personnel evaluation to his staff and focus on higher level concerns. I wouldn't want the GM of my team to do that, though. I would expect him to be an experienced talent evaluator with a strong track record, and I would want him to direct the efforts of his staff as they work their areas. Especially when my GM came up through the scouting ranks. I might have different expectations of someone like John Lynch than I do for Chris Ballard.

I see what you're saying but I don't know how watching film on players goes against what I said?  Of course he watches film.  But he doesn't watch film and say, "that guy is talented we need to sing/draft him".  He watches film and assigns a value to his agility, coachability, acceleration, field awarness, etc.

 

In a nutshell, to me an eye for seems vague and undefinable and I don't think that is a job of a GM.  As a fan we watch a guy who is fast and hits hard, or throws a nice pass or leaps 40" and makes a one handed grab and say that guy is talented. That is not a GMs job, a GMs job is to watch all the little things before the catch, the catch and after the catch and translates those observances into a number system and then quantify how those things compare to others in the same category.  If he knows what to look for then he will be good.  If he doesn't know what to look or he abandons the system because he thinks the guy has talent then he will be a bad GM.

[DougDew]

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

So wrong about Grigson's cap issue.  Go back and check the records.  He had the third highest cap available in the NFL when he took over.  And then the fun began, Bjorn Woerner, TRich, Andre Johnson, Philly cast-offs and several over the hill defensive players all of whom are now gone.

But probably right before cutting Brackett, Clark, and getting the peak of the Hayden accelerated bonus.

 

In his first year, Grigson signed Redding and the Old NT to play Irsay's new 34 defense, and drafted Luck, Fleener, and DA since we had no TEs or QB. He also signed Satele, McGlynn, and Justice because we had no C, no RT, and about 2 Gs.  He had to fill the roster with marginal FAs because we had little cap space after eating the dead cap of Clark and Brackett and Hayden who were cut.

 

The next year we had cap space and Grigson signs Walden, Landry, Ricky Jean, Gosder, and somebody else...and its seen as a disappointment and a poor reflection on Grigson even though he was just named Executive of the Year for the previous season.

 

Ballard's first opportunity to sign free agents with CAP SPACE comes in his first year with the team...not the second year like Grigson, and he signs marginal players.....Jabard who?. Simon who?...but its not viewed with disappointment in his decisions...its correctly seen as the realities of the NFL.

 

The difference isn't in the facts.  Its in what facts people choose to accept and choose to discard in order to justify their opinion.  And their opinion of Grigson was formed when he signed Walden, because that signing and the others that year failed to validate their position as forum expert.  The "forum experts" were butt hurt because the Executive of the Year didn't sign the players they thought he should. 

 

Ballard hasn't even drafted anybody so you can't bring up Grigson's draft choices as a comparison at this point.  But...if you choose to...you could say that Ballard is "signing other teams cast-offs" right now....which is factually correct when any team sign marginal players to cap friendly contracts who played for another team the year before. 

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, neug3246 said:

 

The difference between Grigson's stop gap players and Ballard's stop gap players is that Grigson overpaid for them signing them as proven vets where as Ballard is only signing them to what their actual worth is. That is why the Walden signing was looked down on and guess what he wasn't a stop gap he played his contract out. 

The contracts were always cap friendly if the player was cut, except Landry and Cherilous who were seen as having the talent to play out their contracts.  And they did have the talent.

 

Overpaying doesn't matter if it doesn't get you into a cap problem.  And the Colts never were after Grigson started making the decisions.

 

Correct about Walden.  Walden always got ripped on this board simply because the board thought he was overpaid, when he actually wasn't.  Many perceived him as being overpaid because THEY never knew who he was....not because he wasn't a good player. 

[SteelCityColt]

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

So wrong about Grigson's cap issue.  Go back and check the records.  He had the third highest cap available in the NFL when he took over.  And then the fun began, Bjorn Woerner, TRich, Andre Johnson, Philly cast-offs and several over the hill defensive players all of whom are now gone.

 

Source? 

 

Our dead cap in 2012 finished up as $34,187,698 for one, that's 28% of your cap space gone off the bat. 

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

2 hours ago, Restored said:

There's really only way this Grigson's vs. Ballard's players will be settled and that'll be when we see how much Ballard's players contribute to the team's success. Judging by the success that Grigson's players had (or lack thereof), it shouldn't be that hard.

Actually the only way it'll be settled between those two is a High Noon Draw. 

20 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The contracts were always cap friendly if the player was cut, except Landry and Cherilous who were seen as having the talent to play out their contracts.  And they did have the talent.

 

Overpaying doesn't matter if it doesn't get you into a cap problem.  And the Colts never were after Grigson started making the decisions.

 

Correct about Walden.  Walden always got ripped on this board simply because the board thought he was overpaid, when he actually wasn't.  Many perceived him as being overpaid because THEY never knew who he was....not because he wasn't a good player. 

Hey as much crap as I give you for defending Grigson in many threads, I'm right there with you. I'm not blinded enough by enthusiasm over something new to see that Ballard has signed two complete busts hoping to get something out of them, a way overpaid guy in Sheard who's production and playing time dropped significantly in a contract year, and just filler so far. The only thing I'm excited about is Simon but he's the type of guy that looks amazing when you have better players starting over him so I'm not all that convinced he'll look so good being the sole NFL caliber player at his position.

So far Ballard has been taking the Grigson approach from a sense of speaking and I'm meh about it.

 

I personally think and hope that he's gonna distinguish himself in the draft by not farting around and going defense early and often. Getting skill players later in hopes that a supposedly elite talent in Luck can make them look better than they are (ala Brady/Peyton)

[Valpo2004]

13 hours ago, C0LT5 said:

We did not get an additional pick for Allen, just moved up a couple rounds.

 

Hmmmmm, I thought he invested every year in the OL. Granted it didn't work out very well but that doesn't mean he didn't try. Sorry this revisionist history just got to me on this post and a lot of people do it not just you. If it didn't work out then Grigson didn't try to fix it. Satele, Cherilus, Thomas, Holmes, Thornton, Mewhort, Herremans, and Good he invested in to fix the OL. Boy that's a list of some bad OL, bad luck OL, and some promise in there. But Grigson did try to fix the OL, he just wasn't capable.

 

You can't count low level free agents and low level draft picks as trying.  Trying to fix something means investing high level picks in it and spending money on higher priced FA's.

 

So maybe Satele, Cherilus, Thornton and Mewhort count.  So 4 guys over the course of 4 offseasons for an OL that was always one of the worst in the league.  And remember in 2014 offseason, Satele is cut.  In 2015 offseason Cherlius is cut.  So he knew these guys busted out and still did nothing.  

 

Holmes was a 4th round round pick coming off injury.  A redshirt prospect basically. . . Not someone you can bank your hopes on.

 

If I remember right Thomas was given less then 4 M per year.  

 

Don't remember how much Heeremans was given but it wasn't a lot and he was old.  

 

Good was a 7th round pick.   

 

And lets remember we're trying to build through the draft.  So over the course of 4 years with one of the worst OL's in the league he spends a 2nd and a 3rd.  

At best you can say the OL was put on the backburner. 

[CheezyColt]

How are we not talking about Ulrick John??? 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

On 3/15/2017 at 6:32 AM, 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.  

 

One common thread I've noticed so far is that he's mostly signing guys that played for top defensive units last year. 2 LBs from New England, 1 LB from Houston, a NT from Tennessee (3rd overall run D last year), and he's getting these guys to sign to team-friendly deals. Hunt would be the outlier, but I get the impression he's going to be more of a special teams guy.

[Superman]

4 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I see what you're saying but I don't know how watching film on players goes against what I said?  Of course he watches film.  But he doesn't watch film and say, "that guy is talented we need to sing/draft him".  He watches film and assigns a value to his agility, coachability, acceleration, field awarness, etc.

 

In a nutshell, to me an eye for seems vague and undefinable and I don't think that is a job of a GM.  As a fan we watch a guy who is fast and hits hard, or throws a nice pass or leaps 40" and makes a one handed grab and say that guy is talented. That is not a GMs job, a GMs job is to watch all the little things before the catch, the catch and after the catch and translates those observances into a number system and then quantify how those things compare to others in the same category.  If he knows what to look for then he will be good.  If he doesn't know what to look or he abandons the system because he thinks the guy has talent then he will be a bad GM.

 

So I guess we're talking more about what "eye for talent" means. To me, simply put, it's whether he can scout or not. Can he identify good players, can he identify traits in a player that can be developed, can he predict how well a player will adjust to the NFL, or a new position, etc.? 

 

That's in addition to developing and executing a strategy in line with what your coaching staff need, what your franchise limitations are, maximizing resources, etc. 

 

I think a GM who came up through the scouting ranks ought to be able to scout. That's the kind of GM I prefer. I wouldn't expect John Lynch to have an "eye for talent," and I wouldn't want that kind of GM. But he might be able to do the rest of it.

 

Then there's Matt Millen, who wasn't good at any of it.

[C0LT5]

1 hour ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

You can't count low level free agents and low level draft picks as trying.  Trying to fix something means investing high level picks in it and spending money on higher priced FA's.

 

So maybe Satele, Cherilus, Thornton and Mewhort count.  So 4 guys over the course of 4 offseasons for an OL that was always one of the worst in the league.  And remember in 2014 offseason, Satele is cut.  In 2015 offseason Cherlius is cut.  So he knew these guys busted out and still did nothing.  

 

Holmes was a 4th round round pick coming off injury.  A redshirt prospect basically. . . Not someone you can bank your hopes on.

 

If I remember right Thomas was given less then 4 M per year.  

 

Don't remember how much Heeremans was given but it wasn't a lot and he was old.  

 

Good was a 7th round pick.   

 

And lets remember we're trying to build through the draft.  So over the course of 4 years with one of the worst OL's in the league he spends a 2nd and a 3rd.  

At best you can say the OL was put on the backburner. 

 

I think any signing is trying, it is investing something to try to get a return. I'm not saying he did enough, not even close obviously. But he did do something every off season to address the OL. I just wish it would have worked out much better.

[Valpo2004]

1 hour ago, C0LT5 said:

 

I think any signing is trying, it is investing something to try to get a return. I'm not saying he did enough, not even close obviously. But he did do something every off season to address the OL. I just wish it would have worked out much better.

 

You can't be serious.  

 

Some moves are about improving depth on the team etc.  But If Grigson was relying on 7th round picks and low level FA's to fix our OL then I'm glad he's fired.  

 

It's great when a 7th round pick turns out to be a steal and all.  But you never rely on that.

[C0LT5]

25 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

You can't be serious.  

 

Some moves are about improving depth on the team etc.  But If Grigson was relying on 7th round picks and low level FA's to fix our OL then I'm glad he's fired.  

 

It's great when a 7th round pick turns out to be a steal and all.  But you never rely on that.

Not signing anyone is not investing or trying. That is my point. You said originally he didn't ever invest anything to fixing the OL. Not true, even by your standards of trying or investing.

[Coffeedrinker]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

So I guess we're talking more about what "eye for talent" means. To me, simply put, it's whether he can scout or not. Can he identify good players, can he identify traits in a player that can be developed, can he predict how well a player will adjust to the NFL, or a new position, etc.? 

 

That's in addition to developing and executing a strategy in line with what your coaching staff need, what your franchise limitations are, maximizing resources, etc. 

 

I think a GM who came up through the scouting ranks ought to be able to scout. That's the kind of GM I prefer. I wouldn't expect John Lynch to have an "eye for talent," and I wouldn't want that kind of GM. But he might be able to do the rest of it.

 

Then there's Matt Millen, who wasn't good at any of it.

Yes, I said early on that it was probably a matter of semantics because to me "an eye for talent" means they are not quantifying the attributes of players that the coordinators and coaches think are important, they go off of their gut.

 

And I also explained that the GM is not supposed to find guys that he likes, he should learn from the Coordinators what traits he is looking for a player to have at each position, rank the traits in order of importance and then be able to tell the difference between someone who gets an 86 score in that trait and soemone who gets a 91 (for example).

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Yes, I said early on that it was probably a matter of semantics because to me "an eye for talent" means they are not quantifying the attributes of players that the coordinators and coaches think are important, they go off of their gut.

 

And I also explained that the GM is not supposed to find guys that he likes, he should learn from the Coordinators what traits he is looking for a player to have at each position, rank the traits in order of importance and then be able to tell the difference between someone who gets an 86 score in that trait and soemone who gets a 91 (for example).

 

Got it. I don't know if it's semantics, I think we're talking about two different things. But at least we know what we're talking about now. 

[OLD FAN MAN]

19 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'm hoping the confusion in this thread is mostly semantics.....

 

I think Coffeedrinker is one of our best and most important posters and he doesn't post enough for my taste....   so when he does,  I think he's earned our attention and respect.

 

That said,  I'm wondering if the confusion here is this.....

 

Is a GM looking for the best pure talent,  or is he looking for the best talent for the system that his head coach and coordinators are running?      Those two positions are not always the same.

 

Complicating matters here,  our GM didn't pick the HC,  Grigson and then Irsay did, and Ballard has inherited him.      So, does Ballard look for the best pure talent,  or the best talent for his HC and coordinators?     I think it's the the latter....

 

As Superman noted in his really strong post in this thread,  a GM has a million and one things on his daily, weekly and long-term to-do list.     But, from my perspective,  finding talent is not just Job One,  it's also jobs 1-10, and the other things fall into line after that.

 

So, whether it's the draft where the GM has final say,  or the Free Agent frenzy here in March or signing FA's after the draft and off-the street during the season,  a good GM has to know talent when he sees it and he has to trust the viewpoints of all of his scouts.     They have to all be on the same page.      

 

Talent is the life blood of the team,  you're dead without it.     A GM has to find it and acquire it.

 

Interesting thread......      

 

 

i concur