AKB

nothing new here, he usually uses his 1st round picks to fill whatever spot he couldn't or didn't in FA

If people's posts weren't deleted, moved, or merged with other threads, anti-Ballard posts would dominate this forum. I know that because on every other less moderated forum, the majority of fans are complaining about Ballard, whilst here on this forum its relegated to a single thread in which we separate fan opinions. That's why most people don't even bother complaining about Ballard on this forum anymore.

yeah , it is actually, seems to be a pattern with the players he drafts

but but but he drafted paye and dayo! why ? because we literally didn't have a pass rush and he had no choice but to go back to back DE

@NewColtsFan despite us disagreeing on almost every single topic, you are still one of my favorite posters on the board.

I would like to add that the Baltimore Ravens do not possess Baltimore Colts history. The ravens are the ravens, the team that existed before them moved... remember? They moved like our ancestors on the Mayflower!

I too, include Baltimore as part of that history. Which I just thought most fans did actually.

HOU being one of our biggest cities in this scenario is coincidental. having a franchise QB, and winning, play a big role. That's why you responded to my comment about HOU and not KC because you know it doesn't hold up when you go team by team. It's 2024 players do not care how many likes your YouTube channel gets. They care about getting paid first and playing with a team that can make their value go up as a player. that's it, it's really that simple. of course, there can be other factors such as being close to home and wanting to be in a tax-free state. but there are enough other small team markets that disprove this narrative with their signings. KC probably being the best example. When you win, when you have a franchise guy, players gravitate towards that, regardless of how many people buy hats or jerseys.

I mean.. sure? but are we gonna pretend that Indy is a new team? it's not... the Texans are new right? and players seem to love signing there, maybe its Stroud? maybe its the market? people will come up with any reason to say people don't like Indiana. But do they like Kansas? why? maybe because they win. edit: colts were founded in 1953, GB 1919 --> I'm just imagining free agents looking at a list of what team was founded first to pick one. I guess the Ravens and Jags attract players because they don't have a history. Or maybe its because they win --> Ravens or pay ---> Jags

I mean .. sure? They got us beat on stadium history.. but not much elsewhere? The Colts are a historical franchise in their own right. So are the bears, who have sucked for so long they too, even with a "big market" have to overpay outside guys. if your team sucks, players wont want to play there. market big or small. players like to get paid, and they like to win. usually in that order

hard to not root for a guy with that level of character

Green bay really isn't any more historical than the Colts or Bears? I mean.. they have a bigger marketing budget.. maybe? but idk I don't buy the narrative either

it comes down to who pays the most. and now, we are seeing it in college too. also I've noticed this board is sensitive to anti-ballard comments. they are often deleted, moved, or merged to other threads, or completely discouraged, regardless of the reality that Ballard is fundamentally intertwined with our free agency period, thus if people are unsatisfied, Ballard will be discussed. So IMO, just another ballard defense type comment, which is not new.

oh, not at all. sorry if that's how you interpreted that. but yeah, I do think he is self-motivated, so by nature my comments about him being motivated by self-interest will sound cynical. it's intertwined. edit: I removed that line because that was not my intended meaning

I will begin by saying thank you for the well-thought-out response. I will also agree to leave discourse between you and I regarding Ballard here, because I believe we are at a point, which you and I typically are, where we agree on some aspects, but starkly disagree on a particular instance, or how we interpret the same scenario, With that being said, Ballard is fundamentally integrated into the topic of Colts Free Agency until he is fired, but I will respect your wish and let this be the pinnacle of my Ballard banter until maybe mid-season. With that in mind, I would also like to add that I am not 100 percent anti-Ballard, but I am anti his free agency approach. I think he is top of the line in terms of drafting for value, and finding value in later rounds. He also does a good job increasing his number of picks, but that makes sense considering he has to hit on enough of his picks to supplement his bargain approach to FA. "Why does it matter that Houston was a little older, if he played well? Who cares that Ebron was not at peak value, when he had 14 TDs? Autry outplayed his contract " --> It matters because it's relevant to my initial point that began this message thread between you and me, that he has consistently employed the same philosophy, whilst achieving absolutely nothing. The narrative is that he signs on-budget FAs, resigns his players, and fills gaps in the draft. That's the narrative. it might differ slightly from person to person, but there are enough fans with this viewpoint that it should not be considered a niche opinion, or without its evidence. Regarding Ballard's comments on drafting a QB, I think yours is either an overly literal interpretation of comments that Ballard made, or an overly cynical view of his approach over the years. I think when Ballard said he wasn't going to draft a QB just to please everyone because if the QB isn't good everyone will be calling for him to be fired, he was saying it doesn't matter if you don't get it right. I don't think he was saying he was afraid of being judged for his QB pick. --> Ballard flat out states that taking a QB and missing, often loses you your job. He then proceeds to take like 5 years to draft one. We can choose to interpret that differently, but I can read between the lines. He said multiple times, and in response to questions such as "What took you so long to draft one", and "What went into the decision in not taking a QB this year or that year" all of these questions were met with the same response. He understands the gravity of putting a face to the "Franchise QB moniker" and he was extremely patient for a reason. He only recently pulled the trigger because how could he not? Pick 4 of the draft, half a decade of mediocre non-playoffs standard football. He had no choice but to take a QB. And who does he take? The RAS athletic freak with limited film, as he does with many of his picks. And in 2020 and 2021 especially, I think it's pretty obvious that the veteran QB choices were heavily influenced by Reich, with Irsay's blessing. It's no small coincidence that Reich was fired, and Ballard was retained, despite the team's underwhelming record since Ballard was hired. (And if your response is that Ballard is the GM, so it's on him, fine. I see it differently.) why not allow Reich to pick a QB for a year or two? because then.. who's fault is it? Reichs? Ballard's for letting Reich pick? I mean cmon. this is part of what I'm talking about. Again, provable? no. it's not provable. but the repetition is there to catch on. He's about to do the same thing with Gus. Let's say we take a CB Rd 1, which I think we might. rook or Brents gets injured, we are then back to 7th rounder playing corner. Defense underperforms, fire Gus. Bring in a new guy, and extend his window to add a corner. Paranoid much? Maybe, but if someone keeps dropping urine on me and calling it water, eventually I'm gonna tell them it smells like pee. some of these viewpoints probably do come off as cynical. and I'm okay with that. I believe he should've been fired with Reich, despite me liking his drafting, his overall effort has shown what? Nothing. and in terms of cynically. all people are motivated by self-interest. He has a family.

we were primarily in single high looks

but are we gonna argue that outlier years define the sum? Houston-aged veteran, Ebron was not at his peak value and fizzled out of the league after he left us. Autry again, another budget, mid-player, who outperformed his contract, and thus why ballard let him walk. I guess I'm just not seeing enough here to change my mind on Ballard and his routine. I also think the way people have latched onto Ballard's comments about drafting a QB is disingenuous, --> Can you expand on this? he stated over multiple years, that taking a QB and missing, gets you axed... and he took his sweet time drafting one.. you don't think those two are correlated at all? you don't think he cherry-picked when to fire certain people, or when to finally pull the trigger on taking a QB (which felt inevitable given the circumstances) actually, everything you've said here, IMO reinforced my point. He only took AR due to circumstance, he felt forced. Most of his picks are like that, gap fillers. Let the rook play. Can I pull up a ref from Google Scholar to prove it? no. but a lot of fans see it that way, and we have reason to.

i dont understand resigning him

i think we are gonna draft one first round

the texans actually got to see their guy play, now they are all in.

no, but he will fire him for not producing anything substantial. fan sentiment, especially in bigger markets, does have an influence though. especially with the power of social media these days. we are one of the few teams that would've stood by Ballard for this long. would another team hire him? sure, would most teams sit with him for as long as we have? nope

It's not doubt, its skepticism. This should come along with all rookie QBs, especially those who have limited snaps and just suffered a serious shoulder injury we've seen before in a great QB. I whole heartedly want AR to succeed, and I believe Ballard's job depends on it.

So I put a lot of thoughts into one simple sentence, that doesn't represent the complaint that most anti-ballard fans have. Sure, each year has its personality traits, but overall his BBB FA approach, combined with drafting to FILL needs, with highly athletic but not overall spectacular players. He does a very good job at drafting players that provide value, and he plugs them into spots where the roster appears deficient. (Ryan Kelly, Wentz, Nelson, Leonard, Franklin, Paye, Dayo, Buckner) all picks, some first round to fill a gap The first example you give is the Rivers year. That was the peak of our roster under Ballard, if Luck had not retired, and we had him grow another year with that team, that was our year. Hilton, Zaire, and Speed have all talked about it on his podcast. I disagree that his plan has not been the same for seven years. If we are gonna zoom in on the ridges and humps, we can find a difference between each season and strategy. But Ballard has not changed. He took his sweet time signing over-the-hill QBs and old QBs and avoided drafting a QB (which he has publicly revealed multiple times is because of the accountability that often follows taking a QB with your top pick), and now he's drafted a QB with very limited film, whom just suffered a serious shoulder injury, and we are now on to another .500 season most likely. I suppose if .500 and ALMOST making the playoffs, or ALMOST winning the division is what fans are into, then sure, Ballard is great. But overall I believe, and many other fans believe that Ballard hasn't changed much, if at all. And that the differences in each approach are more circumstantial than belief system-dependent.

has blackmon ever had a season without a big injury? or a season where he didn't miss X amount of games. that's gotta be the main issue with him

Unless his plan works. --> That seems to be the complaint. the plan hasn't changed and has remained the same for 7 years, bearing nothing. if we don't get a CB1, its likely that our defense is towards last in the league, for the 3rd straight year in a row. He has kept the same mantra of resigning his own, whilst filling holes in the draft. My prediction? We draft a late round, high RAS corner, and end up 28th again in PPG. That’s why I am just going to let things play out --> we do have the draft.. and some budget FAs left, so maybe we sign a guy and get some value, maybe we draft a corner in rd 1 or 2. But what happens when Brents gets injured again? We are back to a rookie and a 7th rounder at outside corner. . . if something like this happens again, which seems very likely given ballards MO, he will get fired. There's no way you can repeat the same mistakes over and over. The only thing that might save him from not solving the CB issue is if he scapegoats Gus Bradley, which might buy him 1 additional year. Which, by the way, Ballard has been a master at balancing action vs. nonaction to dictate expectations, and thus his expectation of performance. Not like I can do anything about it. --> fan sentiment does matter.