Defjamz26

Not a Single Signing 30 years or Older

Recommended Posts

Hmmm..Darius Butler is 31. :scratch:

 

I get what you are saying though. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:

Andrew Luck is already a vet. Where do the years go? 

Still only 27 but it doesn't seem like he's been in the league for 5 seasons. Time is flying by!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballard also said he uses analytics.  All of these guys look like matches from querying a database of free agents that fit a range of criteria he is looking for.  It wont show you heart, but it will give you all the physical specs you need.  I find his approach interesting too.  Better get used to it, because this will be how he does things.  Nailing the draft being the most important. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IinD said:

#BringbackGrigs

Don't, just don't.  I'm dealing with a lot in my life right now I can't have this on my plate too

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah for the most part this is true, and I like it.  I don't think there is anything wrong with signing one or two older vets just if they are good lockerroom guys, but overall the majority should come via draft or younger FA's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Everyone said:

Margus Hunt turns 30 in July haha

 

And Al Woods turns 30 next week. 

 

The roster has still gotten younger, no doubt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LockeDown said:

Ballard also said he uses analytics.  All of these guys look like matches from querying a database of free agents that fit a range of criteria he is looking for.  It wont show you heart, but it will give you all the physical specs you need.  I find his approach interesting too.  Better get used to it, because this will be how he does things.  Nailing the draft being the most important. 

 

I love this whole post. Ballard using analytics and "matches from querying a database".:heart:

 

Sounds good enough and smart enough to make me happy. Go Ballard!!!!!!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LockeDown said:

Ballard also said he uses analytics.  All of these guys look like matches from querying a database of free agents that fit a range of criteria he is looking for.  It wont show you heart, but it will give you all the physical specs you need.  I find his approach interesting too.  Better get used to it, because this will be how he does things.  Nailing the draft being the most important. 

He's taking the Moneyball approach it seems. Underrated guys for cheap that never got a real shot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jules said:

 

I love this whole post. Ballard using analytics and "matches from querying a database".:heart:

 

Sounds good enough and smart enough to make me happy. Go Ballard!!!!!!!!

And I think the analytical thing is mostly for FA. Just because there's so much money involved. Better not to try and think with purely gut feelings because then you start really opening your wallet up. That's how they ended up with Spencer's Ware. Ware was a 2013 6th round pick by the Seahawks. He was cut August 2014 but the Chiefs signed him to a futures contract in December of that same year. Activated off the practice squad week 8 of the 2015 season. He just finished 2016 with 921 rushing yards and 447 rushing yards.

 

Based on his comments and how things were done in KC, I think his approach in the draft will be different. He has certain measurables he's looking for, but also takes what the coaches need into consideration. But I think he'll stick to the traditional football rules. He'll build up the trenches meaning he'll draft OL and DL early (Chiefs have recently drafted Poe, Chris Jones, Dee Ford, and Fisher high). Poe was before he got there though but I think he followed the model that Dorsey set. He likes athletic LBs who can cover and long corners. I think he's going to build a totally new look Colts team if given time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, chad72 said:

Hmmm..Darius Butler is 31. :scratch:

 

I get what you are saying though. 

I was talking more along the lines of outside FAs lol, but I guess. And Hunt turns 30 soon but he's a young 30 because he was taken in the 2013 draft. It's just that if my math is correct he was already about 23 around draft time. That comes from not going to SMU full time until 2009 but playing all 4 seasons. He's almost 30 but he'll be a young 30. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

The age just isn't relevant..we need 'better'..not younger

 

The draft gets you younger....

 

Generally in the NFL better is younger.  A lot of our problems on defense and really all over the team was because we had older players.  

 

Older players don't get better, they get worse.  Mike Adams is one of very few players who's best years where ahead of him past age 30.  But that is a rare exception to the rule.  Most players who are past age 30, their best football years are behind them with the exception of maybe kickers, QB's and punters.  

 

Younger players still have the chance to get better.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just to add, no one should be upset with Ballard. I know we should be moving on, but we should be upset with Grigson. If he had put more talent on the team through the draft, we probably could've went after a big name. If Ballard were to sign a big name for every hole we had, we'd already be in cap trouble. At seasons end we had holes at CB, OLB, FS, ILB, NT, and OL. You sign the top FA at each of those positions and that $60 million in cap is gone like that. I think these signings are necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

And just to add, no one should be upset with Ballard. I know we should be moving on, but we should be upset with Grigson. If he had put more talent on the team through the draft, we probably could've went after a big name. If Ballard were to sign a big name for every hole we had, we'd already be in cap trouble. At seasons end we had holes at CB, OLB, FS, ILB, NT, and OL. You sign the top FA at each of those positions and that $60 million in cap is gone like that. I think these signings are necessary.

 

To play devil's advocate, we don't have a lot to be excited about right now with Ballard's additions. Yes, we've added younger players, and there's reason for optimism. I'm with all that.

 

But there are questions with every single player added. None of them are actual difference makers. There are a couple starters with Sheard and Simon, and the rest are borderline starters, role players at best. And a punter, which was necessary (but not because of anything Grigson did or didn't do).

 

At best, Ballard has replaced older veteran starters with younger veteran starters, who might have the potential to do a little better in certain areas. I like Spence's athleticism, but we don't know that he'll actually be better than Jackson was. I'm fine with the move, and I prefer Spence for sure, but he's not even necessarily a starter at this point. We're no better at corner, maybe worse. So right now, our roster is younger. It's not necessarily better, especially in the areas in which we've struggled -- pass rush, pass coverage, run defense, pass protection.

 

I'm not complaining about Ballard, at all. But it's interesting to see everyone contrasting this offseason with Grigson's approach. This offseason so far reminds me of 2013, which was mostly a bust for the Colts, in hindsight. We added a bunch of veteran role players, none were expected to be difference makers, we were just filling holes on the roster due to the lack of talent. It's possible that Ballard's additions work out better than Grigson's did -- and let's hope so -- but we won't know for a while. So far, there's nothing special about what Ballard is doing, and his strategy really hasn't been anything different than what Grigson did under similar circumstances.

 

And there's still the draft, which we won't be able to judge for 2-3 years. Where he'll really set himself apart is if we get defensive starters in multiple drafts in a row, at which Grigson failed.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Superman said:

 

To play devil's advocate, we don't have a lot to be excited about right now with Ballard's additions. Yes, we've added younger players, and there's reason for optimism. I'm with all that.

 

But there are questions with every single player added. None of them are actual difference makers. There are a couple starters with Sheard and Simon, and the rest are borderline starters, role players at best. And a punter, which was necessary (but not because of anything Grigson did or didn't do).

 

At best, Ballard has replaced older veteran starters with younger veteran starters, who might have the potential to do a little better in certain areas. I like Spence's athleticism, but we don't know that he'll actually be better than Jackson was. I'm fine with the move, and I prefer Spence for sure, but he's not even necessarily a starter at this point. We're no better at corner, maybe worse. So right now, our roster is younger. It's not necessarily better, especially in the areas in which we've struggled -- pass rush, pass coverage, run defense, pass protection.

 

I'm not complaining about Ballard, at all. But it's interesting to see everyone contrasting this offseason with Grigson's approach. This offseason so far reminds me of 2013, which was mostly a bust for the Colts, in hindsight. We added a bunch of veteran role players, none were expected to be difference makers, we were just filling holes on the roster due to the lack of talent. It's possible that Ballard's additions work out better than Grigson's did -- and let's hope so -- but we won't know for a while. So far, there's nothing special about what Ballard is doing, and his strategy really hasn't been anything different than what Grigson did under similar circumstances.

 

And there's still the draft, which we won't be able to judge for 2-3 years. Where he'll really set himself apart is if we get defensive starters in multiple drafts in a row, at which Grigson failed.

Oh by know means am I saying that we hit the jackpot in FA. A lot of the guys are stop gap and aren't all-stars. I agree with you there. The excitement for me comes from seeing a change in philosophy and the continuation of one thing Grigson did right in FA. Like Grigson Ballard didn't throw ridiculous money at the "top" FAs, which is good. Unlike Grigson however, Ballard didn't throw a bunch of money at 30+ year old guys way past their prime. He isn't trying to forcibly fill holes. He seems content to leave the rest to the draft. It's just nice to see the Colts actually getting younger. And honestly just being younger makes us better already. Guys with fresher bodies, room to grow, and more gas in the tank. His strategy for filling holes is better than Grigson's IMO. Even if Sheard, Simon, etc...don't blow up it's better than handing starting jobs to 32 year olds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Unlike Grigson however, Ballard didn't throw a bunch of money at 30+ year old guys way past their prime.

 

Not really, though. In 2013, RJF was 27, Gosder was 28, Landry was 28, Thomas was 28, Toler was 28, Havili was 26, Bradshaw was 27, Walden was 28. The only older guys were Hasselbeck and Franklin. 

 

These signings didn't work out, but they weren't over the hill 30+ players.

 

Quote

He isn't trying to forcibly fill holes.

 

Grigson signed players who could start, while younger players got experience. Ballard's signings so far are intended to fill holes. I don't know how you "forcibly" fill holes, besides signing players you think can play. 

 

Quote

He seems content to leave the rest to the draft.

 

??? 

 

Werner, Thornton, Holmes, Hughes, were all intended to be starters eventually, and they all had more than enough chances to contribute. Grigson's plan was to fill holes in the short term (evident from contract structure, if nothing else) and hope for draft picks to develop into starters. Ballard's strategy in free agency so far seems to be the same.

 

Quote

It's just nice to see the Colts actually getting younger. And honestly just being younger makes us better already. Guys with fresher bodies, room to grow, and more gas in the tank.

 

I agree that getting younger is good. It's not necessarily better. That remains to be seen. 

 

Quote

His strategy for filling holes is better than Grigson's IMO.

 

So far, it's the exact same strategy Grigson employed in 2013. We'll see if it works out better.

 

Quote

Even if Sheard, Simon, etc...don't blow up it's better than handing starting jobs to 32 year olds.

 

Which didn't happen until Year 4.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Not really, though. In 2013, RJF was 27, Gosder was 28, Landry was 28, Thomas was 28, Toler was 28, Havili was 26, Bradshaw was 27, Walden was 28. The only older guys were Hasselbeck and Franklin. 

 

These signings didn't work out, but they weren't over the hill 30+ players.

 

 

Grigson signed players who could start, while younger players got experience. Ballard's signings so far are intended to fill holes. I don't know how you "forcibly" fill holes, besides signing players you think can play. 

 

 

??? 

 

Werner, Thornton, Holmes, Hughes, were all intended to be starters eventually, and they all had more than enough chances to contribute. Grigson's plan was to fill holes in the short term (evident from contract structure, if nothing else) and hope for draft picks to develop into starters. Ballard's strategy in free agency so far seems to be the same.

 

 

I agree that getting younger is good. It's not necessarily better. That remains to be seen. 

 

 

So far, it's the exact same strategy Grigson employed in 2013. We'll see if it works out better.

 

 

Which didn't happen until Year 4.

 

 

 

Oh sure,  throw facts in our face!!

 

Facts!     Facts!    Facts!     Facts!      

 

Boy, oh boy,  don't you ever get tired of facts?!          :peek:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The fans anymore just kill me. Talking about the draft after 6 games. We don't know where we are going to pick, we don't know who is gonna be there, we don't know what trades are available.   I feel like we need have some kind of idea of what out options are to have a meaningful conversation about it. We have a young team that is gonna improve over time and we still aren't sure if this is gonna be another 8-8 type of season or a 5-11 type of season, and those 3 wins could be the difference between picking 6 and 15, which are totally different situations. If we had 6 i would be willing to trade down as long as we are still picking in the front half of the first round. But if we have 15, I would rather stay put. I think it's important the Colts target blue chip talent. 
    • Remember them early days when we'd never lose back to back games with Chuck? LOOOONG GONE are those days.   IMO he's a guy in the real world who does his job, but isn't really great at it.   
    •   Why is that "pretty awesome"??   With all our needs,   why would anyone want the team to spend a high number one on a WR?   I think that would be a disaster.......  
    •   Arden Key isn't even wrecking games in college.     Not sure why you're so convinced he'll be doing it in the NFL.   He's got to show a lot more.     He's not Miles Garrett.  
    •   So, was Pagano a tough minded coach when we were winning but suddenly he's a weak minded coach?   You think the changes the last 3 years have nothing to with personnel?   I don't understand this line of thinking at all.       But,  in the grand scheme of things,   I don't think it matters much whether we agree or agree to disagree.....   because I think we both believe that Pags will not be the coach next year.     I'm not saying it's a 100 percent lock,  I think it's too early to make that kind of prediction.....   but we'd have to see dramatic improvement over the next 10 games and I don't think most people here see that happening.   So,  there will likely be a new leader in 2018.....    the only question appears to be.....    who?  
  • Members

    • DonnieDarko1023

      DonnieDarko1023 7

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • danlhart87

      danlhart87 958

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • GoDeep

      GoDeep 576

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Swan Ronson

      Swan Ronson 95

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • shastamasta

      shastamasta 165

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Chucklez

      Chucklez 748

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • GoatBeard

      GoatBeard 156

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ColtsFan92

      ColtsFan92 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • MarquisJ

      MarquisJ 159

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • HungarianColtsFan

      HungarianColtsFan 1,786

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active: