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

    • I like the assessment. I would personally include Mingo in pleasant surprises, the guy is all around the ball all the time, he is rejuvinated it seems with us after lackluster play in Cleveland and NE. I also would include Mack in pleasant surprises as i believe we have only seen glimpses of the REAL Mack attack yet due to the coaches not playing him, i understand we have a proven veteran RB on the team, after this season when Gore leaves im fully confident Mack will assume the number 1 role and become a top 5 running back in the league. Then lastly i would put the Oline in dissapointments, as you stated nobody expected them to blow anyone away but i personally dont think anyone expected them to be as bad as the have been either.
    • Geathers was having a great season last year under monachino before his neck injury I think he will be fine he needs to play more man to man.
    •   ^^^ ban this user!! ^^^
    • It was the only show I watched or listened to on ESPN. Now that they are no longer a team I will have no need to tune into ESPN at all.
    • I think you have done a very nice assessment of our teams progress and where we are right now.  Most of the teams improvement has come on the defensive side of the ball coming from additions and improvement from our young players.  The loss of Luck for the year and the hurried assimilation of Brissett to the lineup certainly has not helped the offense meet our preseason expectations.  I read where Doyle was second in the league in receptions among TE's before the Pittsburgh game.  A stat that blew me away actually.  Who knows what a healthy Luck and a better OL  would have done for Moncrief and the rest of the WR's.   I think you have to congratulate the coaches for this progress and continued improvement that we have seen from this team.  They have gotten better and that's what we are looking for.  It might be a lost season record wise but if you are looking at player and overall team development you have to be pleased with the great progress they have made this year.  No one is happy with the record but you can not ignore the overall improvements that have been achieved.  Everyone is looking forward to new coaches next year but this years staff has done some pretty impressive work teaching and improving the overall contributions of our players.  
  • Members

    • krunk

      krunk 8,264

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Coltfreak

      Coltfreak 555

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • crazycolt1

      crazycolt1 6,775

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • life long

      life long 200

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • 100GFB

      100GFB 741

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • gspdx

      gspdx 103

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Derakynn

      Derakynn 1,214

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ar7

      ar7 235

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Redbull

      Redbull 4

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • richard pallo

      richard pallo 669

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active: