stitches

March 23

3 hours ago, Zoltan said:

I think a lot of people are overvaluing Sneed’s actual ability, I mean he isn’t even top 10

For our scheme he probably is top 10, but at the same time ... I kind of agree that people have the idea that Sneed is an elite corner which IMO he isn't. He's good and would have improved our team, but it's not like trading for prime Jalen Ramsey. I personally am not too heartbroken over this. The salary and compensation came at about the level I would have been OK with paying, but I don't think it's a no brainier or something of the sort.

I continue insisting that the big picture approach and philosophy from Ballard is more problematic than one specific missed opportunity.

March 23

4 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Does Ballard realize corner is a premium position.

I've been telling you this for years, guys and gals. The answer is "no". But he does think defensive tackle and run stuffing linebacker are... :dunno:

March 23

51 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Thomas and the Oregon wr were the best deep threats

I just recently watched Jermaine Burton... He's amazing downfield too... I think he's a player who's a bit under the radar right now, but looks very intriguing to me. His Y/R were insane this year(over 20) and have been very high for 4 years running now... There seem to be some character/attitude concerns with him so no idea if the Colts will be interested but he might be the best receiver tracking the ball downfield and he has great hands and ballskills.

March 22

1 hour ago, Superman said:

I don't think that's the point. What the Colts have almost always done with upcoming free agents is extend them before they hit the market, which typically puts a cap on the player's contract value. It also allows the team to spread out the cap hits more effectively. Outside of Pittman, the players that the Colts really want to build around do not reach free agency, so there's no opportunity for the rest of the league to overvalue them in the market.

I think pretty much all of the FAs we re-signed hit free agency this year. They might not have gone on the tours around the league, but do you really think their agents weren't gathering information about their market the last few weeks to months at the very least? They all did and they liked what the Colts offered compared to what they were hearing from the league. Kenny Moore even mentioned that it was 50-50 whether he would come back for example.

1 hour ago, Superman said:

I don't think it's about the investment they've already made into the player. I think it's about having a player they want to retain, compared to replacing him with a player they don't know in the hopes the new player will be as good or better, and probably for more money.

That's another aspect that I am not super happy about - Ballard lacks aggression and is very risk averse. He would rather have a solid player he knows rather than try to get a great one(or at least an upgrade) he doesn't know. We know what that leads to... It leads to securing the status quo. And if the status quo was more than mediocrity, that will be all good but alas, we've been nothing but mediocre for huge majority of Ballard's tenure.

1 hour ago, Superman said:

I do think it's limiting, especially with how rigid Ballard seems to be at times, but I don't think it's arrogance or confirmation bias. Setting aside the QB position, I think the biggest flaw in the strategy over the past few years has been the quality of drafting.

I think it's both. I think If you know you will have limited role in FA, you need to nail the draft... Year after year. And that is kind of a fool's errand. Teams are not great in that draft thing and over the long term they all converge towards the same level.

1 hour ago, Superman said:

Speaking of arrogance, I think a good exercise for fans is to look back at the free agents we wanted the Colts to sign who actually reached the market, and see just how often those players failed to work out on their new teams. We remember wanting Charles Leno, but how many people criticized the Colts for not signing Alejandro Villanueva? How many people called Ballard cheap for not signing Allen Robinson? Who wanted JC Jackson? And who understand the cap ramifications, and pays attention to them on a year to year basis?

That's a good exercise for humbling our egos, but at the same time I want to emphasize that we are fans on an internet board. That's pretty much what we do all the time - who should we get in FA, who should we draft, who should we cut and who and when should we trade, who should play RG or the second outside corner, etc. it's the nature of the boards. But again..

We are fans. Those people are pros. Those people are being paid MILLIONS to make those decisions and they have the resources of a multi-billion corporation behind them with the wide ranging support for their decision-making process. I have no illusions that I know more football than Ballard or that I have anywhere close to the resources he has. And teams miss all the time on those types of decisions. It's only natural for us as just fans to not be great at this either. But that doesn't mean I will agree with Ballard's ways and philosophies. In fact, even without any of his knowledge or resources and without the fear or shame of being called arrogant I will absolutely stand behind my opinion that Ballard's view of the game and what wins at the highest level in today's league is outdated.

1 hour ago, Superman said:

We're fans on a message board, so it's fine, but it feels like a distinct lack of self awareness to say that an NFL GM who believes free agency is overrated is "arrogant." I think pretty much everyone agrees that free agency is overrated, until it's the player you really want your team to sign.

I am not sure what exactly is meant by overrated in the context. Every time a player comes to a point where they need to reset the market to their talents, it's the team that's highest on their skills and projection that is going to get them. So... highest expectation(salary) usually wins the bidding war and it's only natural for that to be a bit of an overpay in most cases since they are paying for the top percentile projection. But that comes with the territory. I wouldn't call it overrated... Probably there's a better word for it, but doesn't come to my mind right now.

I don't necessarily disagree with Ballard's refusal to participate in bidding wars.. And this almost by default means we will be out on the biggest FAs. But I do think he can have a more aggressive approach in replacing mediocre pieces on our own team with players that have shown promise on other teams but don't command huge salaries or vets who have shown high level of play in the past... It's kind of interesting to me, because when Ballard has done it before, he has actually had good success in the mid-tier FA market - Houston, Ebron, Autry, Sheard, Gilmore, Rhodes...

So yah... I would call free agency underutilized part of the roster building process for Ballard,.even though there is a risk of overpaying.

March 22

35 minutes ago, Superman said:

No, I think this is simple: The devil you know. Not saying it's right, but explaining why I don't think A and C are at odds with each other.

And then, historically, we know that players who change teams in free agency do not live up to their contracts. So he'd rather keep the guy the team is familiar with, that the coaches know how to use and motivate, than replace him in free agency for a potential improvement that's probably marginal at best, or a failure at worst.

There's also a cap management benefit to extending Franklin vs signing Luvu, particularly when you have a strict cap management philosophy.

And while I don't have a huge problem with Ballard's free agency philosophy, I do think at times it gets applied more rigidly than I think it should. At the right time, for the right player, it's okay to pay an extra 10% for the chance to improve your roster.

I still don't think the devil you know reasoning answers the question - why do we think in a league that according to our own philosophy overvalues free agents, it's only our own free agents that they don't overvalue and we get them for what they are actually worth? I just call nonsense... we can fool ourselves by saying "well we know them better than the rest of the league", which might be true... but again... this doesn't answer why wouldn't they value them higher(rather than lower) than us since it's apparently what they do with almost every other FA?

I think in an ideal world our GM would pursue FAs based on what they can provide to the team rather than based what types of investments we've already made into a certain player. IMO it's just too limiting. Ballard pretty much by his own volition limits himself in FA to extremely narrow pool of possible signings... and huge majority of them are the players he has already drafted/signed. I agree with @Solid84 here,,, there is a certain level of arroggance and confirmation bias here.

March 22

1 hour ago, Superman said:

I think his deepest convictions are, in whatever order: A) Draft well and pay your own, B) The trenches are critically important, and C) Free agency is overrated. (I don't have a huge problem with this approach, but you have to be near perfect in the draft, every year, for it to work well.)

Agree with that evaluation of what Ballard's philosophy is like. But you know what I realized recently - there is internal inconsistency within those principles. And specifically here I mean between A and C. Is there any reason we should think our own FAs are underrated by the league while the rest of the free agency pool gets "A and B money for B and C players"? Because if not, then why resigning our own provides us with any better value than going out of the organization and signing outside FAs? Example... is Grover's contract better than DJ Reader's contract? Is Pittman's contract any better than Ridley's contract? Is Taylor's contract any better than Josh Jacobs contract? Is Franklin's contract any better than Luvu's contract? etc. And if they are not... or at least not clearly so... then why would signing our own be the preferable path and isn't this putting an artificial limitation on the pool of players we will be entertaining signing?

March 21

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

My thinking, he called Veach Monday of last week and asked if a 3rd and future 5th would do it, and Veach said he'd be in the running. Then he called Sneed's agent and asked what the price would be, and the agent said something like $84m for four years. And that was it.

Probably ... and then the agent released the info about the Colts deal being close to done to reporters in order to create more leverage in further negotiations either with the Chiefs or with other teams that are interested. and the reporters who were willing to print/tweet info coming from an agent without confirmation from the team(because the Ballard's Colts do NOT confirm that type of things before it's DONE DONE), did that, while the more experienced ones waited for confirmation from the team and never got it...

March 21

3 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

And the fact still remains that he did have trade talks regarding Sneed. So I’m not entirely convinced he plans on starting two very young players with injury concerns as our two outside corners.

We don't really know just how deep those talks were... if there were any...

March 21

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

That's fair. But if you add in the comments about Jones and getting Brents healthy and Dallis Flowers coming back, I still think it's a rosy interpretation. I could see adding a veteran at some point, depending on how the draft goes.

Jones, and Flowers coming back. I get wanting to give young guys the opportunity to grow and develop, and I definitely agree that this can only be done if they get meaningful reps. But personally, I would not be hanging my hat on guys like Jones and Flowers. Brents maybe, he was a 2nd rounder, but I think he's really grabby and undisciplined. Just like I wouldn't let our TE room prevent me from drafting a top tier TE prospect, I wouldn't let our DB group prevent me from a meaningful upgrade at corner.

Like with many things regarding our defense, I absolutely agree with you... I just am not sure if Ballard agrees and he's the one whose opinion is really important here. :dunno:

March 21

1 hour ago, MikeCurtis said:

Latu should absolutely be in consideration at pick 15

I'm very split on him... He looks so good on tape... so polished with his technique... and despite his testing which is very good(but not elite), he just doesn't look explosive to me... so I don't know how he will translate to the league?!?

March 21

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

Thank you for this. He said it was rough because they were young. He didn't actually say he wanted to include more veterans in the secondary this year. In fact, he signals that the young players got a lot of experience from last season. On another occasion -- maybe at the Combine? -- he said something like 'once you've played half a season, you're not really a rookie anymore, we expect you to perform.'

I think this is another situation where people heard what they wanted to hear. He said they were young last year, and the assumption was made that he would want to add a vet this year. Whoops.

The thing I keep coming back to is the effusive praise for Jaylon Jones and for the scout that made Ballard take him. They must really like him as a potential long-term starter? In addition to having invested high pick for Brents and he himself showing some promise early in the season... I am not that high on Jaylon, but if the GM is that high... I guess you can understand not wanting to stunt his growth by adding a vet who will take snaps away from him.

March 21

March 21

Under 4 seconds short shuttle?!?!?!?!? wth?!?!?

March 21

March 21

March 21

3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Ravens Squashed them

They did last playoffs, but IMO that's a team on the rise and they will be getting better and better over the next few years.

March 21

Here's a quote from Ballard on the secondary from the end of year presser after the season:

I guess... he doesn't see much urgency in addressing the secondary. We will rely on continuity and development of the young guys... #DelayedGratification

March 21

3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Houston would have no chance and would get squashed like a bug. Cincy with a healthy Burrow, Ravens, and maybe the Bills could upset KC. Ravens will be interesting again after picking up Henry.

I think you are underestimating Houston. They are building something good there. Given reasonable health to their big time players IMO they can be competitive against anybody in the league. No guarantee they win, but I don't think they will look out of place(squashed like a bug) vs the Chiefs.

March 21

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

Rock Ya-Sin started for three straight years. 2019, 20 and 21. This season, Brents will be starting his year 2. When both didn’t start it was due to injury, not performance.

I'm not sure that is correct for Rock. I think he lost his starting spot to... TJ Carrie if I'm not mistaken at some point... correct me if I'm wrong.

March 20

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

So what about With the Next Pick? Is this a replacement?

Last year they only had 2 episodes. No idea if they are phasing it out or what...

March 20

In all the staff meetings and player meetings I've seen he seems like he's very intense... and passionate... I like it..

March 20

March 20

March 20

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Big and fast like AP, but nothing tells me they will separate or have superior route running. Just going by what folks criticize AP for not having. I think that is important to know for any WR prospect.

Both Thomas and Mitchell are better separators than AP IMO and have better and more expansive, even if still unpolished, route tree. Mitchell has some really nice ball skills too...

March 20

18 minutes ago, DougDew said:

And what would you do with AP? Its a question that needs answering if we go WR in the first, because almost assuredly that guy will start because of draft slot.

On the question. AP is not good enough to make you take him into consideration about whether to pick a player at his spot or not in the 1st. If you think one of those guys is good enough to be a top receiver for you, you pick him and figure out what to do with AP later.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Gallery

Events

Blogs

Posts posted by stitches