stitches

Interestingly enough, his PFF grade in zone is even higher than his grade in man. I think he can play both... but he has press-man experience, which would be helpful if we decide to man up more often or 3d downs.

Yes, we've seen this type of approach work wonders in the past for us... not addressing OL followed by complete collapse of the OL, not addressing DB followed by disastrous DB season, not addressing DL and relying on the youth followed by meagre pass-rushing season. What could possibly go wrong with just sitting on our deficient roster and hoping that various groups will just... improve? And yes... there are usually internal improvements to be made from young players, don't get me wrong... but those improvements in huge number of cases are incremental, not huge jumps. BTW if they rely on AR to turn Pierce, Pittman and Downs, who were a bottom 10 receiving corps in the league into a great one, that to me screams even MORE reliance on AR, rather than less. In essence what they would be wanting out of him is to do what Luck used to do - turn mediocre receiving groups into great producing units. I'm not sure if AR is ready for that. I think at this point he needs more help from his receiving group, rather than the other way around(although, Pierce might indeed benefit purely from the style of play we can practice with AR, compared to Minshew). Yep... as I've said before and above... I disagree with their assessment. Oh they will definitely add more vets after the draft. This is what Ballard does every year. he fills the holes with what is left over after the first and second wave of FA. Doubt any of them will be difference makers of any sort. Good QB play is very important to any team's success, indeed. My problem is that we are not doing enough to support our QB and improve the chances that he has a season of good QB play. Young QBs need support... especially ones as green as AR is and the very fact that we are relying on a rookie scale QB should have been enough to allow us to actually splurge on some weapons for him. While Stroud will have Diggs and Mixon, Levis will have Calvin Ridley and Pollard, as it stands right now, AR will have Ashton Dulin.

When he makes snide remarks towards reporters asking him legit questions about the pass-catchers of this team for example. When he continues professing the same damn philosophy that has brought little to no success to this team... I just don't see any sign that he actually has learned something or changed anything in his approach to team building. I think he's dug in and unwilling to move. This to me is stubborness and arroggance.

He's not megalomaniac, but he is stubborn and sometimes pretty arroggant for the limited success he's had with this team.

The team was whatever it was last year(if they thought it was good, then good, if they thought it was mediocre, then mediocre) and it should be pretty much the same this year, except for AR. I have no idea how much of a difference he would make, but I think it's fair to say whatever improvements they expect, they expect them to come mainly from AR. Hell, you can read Atkins and Holder's pieces, who seem to have talked to Ballard and this is pretty much what emanates from those pieces. It's about AR, the whole point of those pieces is precisely this - to explain how not making any moves is good and getting AR back will make the difference. You know what I think about this roster and where I think we are weak. AR doesn't fix any of those areas.

Is your ranking influenced by the year Stroud had or were you this high on him before? Because if I had to re-rank him based on what he's already shown I would put him no. 1 too. Also... any particular reason you are this low on Caleb?

I might be the wrong person to ask since I had AR higher than pretty much anybody around... and he hasn't done anything (besides getting injured) to dissuade me from my evaluation at the time. If I had to stack them I'd probably go with... 1. Caleb Williams 2. Drake Maye 3. Anthony Richardson 4. CJ Stroud 5. Jayden Daniels 6. Will Levis 7. Bryce Young 8. JJ McCarthy I don't exactly remember if I had Bryce above or below Levis, but I had them close.

Very realistic mock with a trade back. I personally like Mitchell a lot too...

Seems like teams already had concerns about his off-field focus and partying...

Good job with the draft. You got some of my favorites for the Colts. Best EDGE in the draft... one of the most explosive WRs in the second... and really traitsy CB later in the draft. Nice

Is that much more competitive than last year though? And just how much harder is our schedule? By winning % we are tied with a few teams for the 10th easiest schedule. By Mike Clay's projections we are with the 8th easiest schedule. Haven't seen it by Vegas odds but I assume we will again be in that range.

What are your expectations for next year? What does "much more competitive than last year" mean? And what should be the repercussions/changes for not hitting that goal?

One of the easier ones IMO. I'd take Arnold. I think he's the best CB in the draft and I think if Ballard drafts him this would mean a bit of a change of direction or at least an attempt to diversify the coverage we are playing since he's one the best preess-man corner prospect in the draft.

I think Ballard is very stubborn and I think he still believes in his overall philosophy even after the last 7 years not bringing much of any high level success to the team. I think there are very few things he admits for doing wrong... and when he does it... surprisingly the next year repeats the mistake. One year he left a failing OL without much help and next off-season he admitted it was a mistake... only to do the exact same thing this time with the DBs a year or two later. He still believes in building from the inside out... I still don't think he has the required focus on pass-catching weapons for his QB... etc. One thing that I am not sure was an admision of a mistake but can be taken that way. In one of his off-season interviews he mentioned that in 2020 they were considering trading up for a QB before signing Rivers and trading the pick for Buckner. My pure informed speculation is that he wanted to trade up for Herbert. He will never straight up admit it, because Buckner is still on this team and he's been a great Colt... I just wish we could give him some truth serum and see what he says about that thing. To me this episode was such an interesting moment and Colts media pretty much never talk about that fork in the road that Ballard himself admits was being considered.

21 teams out of 32 teams have won a Division title since Ballard became GM of the Colts.

But it isn't for a 6th rounder? Come on man... this is so obtuse and you know it is. You know what he meant, you know what I meant. Should we expand on every single caveat that can be made about a pretty simple and intuitive statement only so someone wouldn't catch you in a technicality "well, you actually didn't explicitly say this or that". This is stupid. Lets talk like adults here. Did you get what is meant when me or @Solid84 wrote our posts? Do we really need to go into whether a 3d rounder is "taking a shot" or the 4th rounder is "taking a shot", but the sixth rounder after that isn't... but in one of the years there were legit 1st round QBs to be taken and in the other one there weren't... etc. If you want to be really technical... EVERYTHING in the draft is a dart throw. From the no. 1 pick to the UDFAs. Doesn't mean we cannot talk colloquially and understand eachother without "gatchas". Ballard did NOT seriously address the QB position in the draft until last year. This is the essence. And a pick in the 3d might not have been enough either... but it would have been better than nothing. When you have no long-term QB on the roster, you do what you can to find that guy.... in the 1st.... or in the 3th or as UDFA... just different expectations for players drafted in different ranges. I'm sorry but this whole thing is so freaking pointless and doesn't serve anybody except for us to bicker over meaningless minutiae and waste our time.

I liked the dart throw at Eason and praised Ballard for it, although my true preference was for us to go for a QB in the 1st. The Eason pick was something, but was not enough.

Oh I've owned a ton bad posts/opinions/evaluations here. Just not... this supposed one. I mean I showed you two posts where I was pretty happy with Ballard about that draft and you have showed me .... nothing besides your supposed memories. I have no idea how I can comment or own something I don't remember happening... or hell even if it happened, I don't know the exact content so I'd know if I should "own it" as a bad post. I'm not saying I haven't made an "angry" post about Ballard not picking a QB. I just don't remember. I haven't been happy with Ballard about not drafting a QB pretty much every single year since Luck retired until last year. This is nothing new. And I don't think any of my opinions in that vein were "wrong" or "bad". I happy to stand with them even at this point. About as angry as you've seen me. I think the angriest I've been on this forum is actually with you. But that's a different topic. Word.

I hope we don't get to see if I'm right in my assessment.

Another one of my under the radar favorites. It seems like there are attitude/character concerns with him. He had problems with that both in Georgia and Alabama... this is another one where our scouts will have to do their jobs on the background of the player about whether he can be trusted and picked high(likely will have to pick him on day 2 if you want him).

I think if AR doesn't look like a franchise QB and the Colts miss the playoffs again(i.e. no improvement), Ballard is as good as gone.

Oh I know perfectly well what he meant and there is no twisting in his words. The more contentious part of my post is whether he indeed is relying on one player to now make the difference for him. I think all the puff pieces (Nate Atkins, Holder) we've had trying to explain how what he's doing (7th year in a row) is good, while the opponents are losing talent(conveniently omitting to assess if the lost talent is better than the gained talent), are making a pretty good case for the essence of my post - Ballard's main hope for this team to be better next year is AR. Which is pretty ironic. Damn... I guess now that the sad emoji is out you decided it's time to open the vault with long held inside gripes. I crucified Ballard? I mean... I guess I will have to rely on your memory here and hope they are better than mine and not at all influenced by grudges or inability to take criticism of ... the team's GM. I don't have that memory because my memory is that at the time I actually liked a lot of those picks. Notice, this is not to be mistaken with me wishing he'd take a shot on one of those QBs in the 3d. And I don't consider that a mistake, either. Both Tennessee and ATL made the right decision to take a shot on a talented QB when they knew they didn't have their long-term guy on the roster. It didn't work for them... it's normal, a lot of picks don't work out and not just at QB and it doesn't automatically make the decision wrong or a mistake. This is something you don't seem to understand - the process is much more important than the low level details. I've said a ton of times - I care about what Ballard does on a philosophical level, much more than the specifics... I defer a lot to him and the scouting department on specific players. And I don't expect every player to hit... and I don't consider every miss a mistake.

I think Fuaga might be the best OT in the draft. He's so good... moves so well... I wouldn't blame Ballard if he drafted him.

Ballard spent his whole tenure with the Colts telling us "it's not about one guy" and here we are 7 years later... Ballard betting his job on the development and play of one guy.