shasta519

I do get your point. But we can only evaluate based on what HAS happened. You can take out 2017 if you like, but let's not act like Ballard's 2018 draft class (the foundation of his reputation) wasn't a direct result of it. We don't need to get into specific aspects of the GM role. Everybody will agree that Ballard clears Grigson on many in that regard. That's not my point. My point is that we can't ding Grigson's success for having Luck and excuse Ballard's lack of success for not having Luck. It has been said that Luck carried an entire org. for multiple years. If he can do that, what would make Ballard's success more legitimate (assuming it was a similar run). If anything, the same grading curve you are applying to Ballard not having Luck would have to be applied to him in the opposite way if he did have Luck. But with how quick people are to credit 2018 to Ballard, that would never happen. Again, it's just a double standard.

Well he can just being a scapegoat in this scenario I guess. Now that I think of it, he strikes me as more of a mid-season fire if they aren't playing well. I really don't know why they kept him. Maybe he is good friends with Steichen. But I think he's ultimately going to take the fall for an aging defense that is going to need to be rebuilt very soon. If you think about it, this defense has largely been the same since 2020. And it's only that recent because that was when DeFo was acquired. But the majority of impact players like DeFo (2020), Grove (2017), Franklin (2017), Speed (2019), Lewis (2018) and Moore (2018) are all from several years ago. The only newcomers are a couple of ERs who have yet to become foundational players and some DBs who are unknowns. I don't think we can consider this continuity to be a good thing, especially since this team has had a low ceiling for years. And it would seem to be a byproduct of philosophy (we like our guys) and some not so great drafting.

Why is Luck responsible for the success under Grigson, but not the (unfortunately short) success with Ballard? Both GMs had to rebuild rosters. And in the small sample we have to compare, they had the same success with Luck. In his 2nd year as GM, Grigson went 11-5 and 1-1 in the playoffs with Luck at QB. In his 2nd year as GM, Ballard went 10-6 and 1-1 in the playoffs with Luck as his QB. If Luck had stayed for Ballard's 3rd year, nothing short of a trip to the SB would have been more successful than Grigson's 3rd year with Luck as QB because that team went to the AFCCG. We don't know what would have happened after that. The landscape of the AFC changed dramatically since Luck retired. So what could have happened is mostly just conjecture. I don't mean to get into some debate over these two guys again. If it were up to me, neither would be the Colts GM. But this has always been such a double standard that exists throughout most of this fanbase.

Part of me thinks they are giving Bradley a chance to fix the defense, but the other part of me thinks Bradley will make for a nice scapegoat if next year doesn't go great.

But assigning importance in the form of a "winning season" to two 9-8 seasons is also not very objective. The Colts are picking in the top half of the draft this year, which is not typically what a team with a winning season ends up doing. But an average person would assume a winning season was a success. Ballard has gone from the pedestal to polarizing. At this point, I imagine you are going to have people who will defend him well beyond his tenure and people who won't change their tune even if the Colts win a SB.

That's some of the worst tackling you will ever see though. They almost sort of push him toward the EZ too. In college, AR was able to run over or run away from most players. That's not the case in the NFL. And he even said he didn't realize he wasn't ready for that leap. Got him hurt twice too. This season is going to be very telling. I expect to hear about how he's in the best shape of his life and that's he added back muscle, etc.

Yep. It lines up with the theory that their sack production was a bit of an outlier. Or at the very least, not indicative of a top level pass rush. And if you look at the individual parts, you can see why. Ebukam was solid, but not exactly a game-wrecker. He will also be 29 next year, so I am not sure you can just pencil him in for 9.5 sacks again. Paye and Dayo are decent players, but not high level ERs. DeFo is great, but he's going to be 30. They need a big-time addition at ER. And this offseason is actually the time to do it because Dayo will be a FA after next season, Paye could be (if they don't pick up his option) and Ebukam/DeFo will both be 30+.

He’s a role player who has gotten hurt a lot.

Manning winning 7-8 MVPs would sort of prove my point. Mahomes has won 2/6 MVPs in the league so far (2018, 2022). The seasons that he didn't we saw insane seasons from Lamar (2019) and Rodgers (2020-21)...and then this year. In 2019 and 2020, Mahomes put up a better season than any but Manning's 2004 MVP season. The closest he got to an MVP in those years was 3rd. And Mahomes' 2021 season was about on par with Manning's 2009 MVP season. I just don't think we can use MVPs to decide the order of QB greats. But let's see where Mahomes finishes first.

I don't know. MVP just seems much harder to win now than before. Maybe not this past year, but Mahomes had two seasons where he didn't win MVP that would have possibly been unanimous back in the 2000s.

But I bet he retires far earlier than Brady. The ring argument will make Brady the greatest, but not the best QB. The AFC seems more competitive now than it was during the first NE run and certainly the most recent NE run (2014-2018). When NE went to 4 SBS and won 3 from 2014-2018, here are some of the AFC teams they beat: BAL and Flacco IND and Luck (coached by Pagano) HOU and Osweiler PIT and Big Ben TEN and Mariota JAC and Bortles The AFCS was basically a layup back then for NE. Not to diminish what NE has accomplished, I just think that going forward, the competition in the AFC will make it very difficult for Mahomes to approach the number of SB appearances or rings that Brady has. Every year, he's likely going to be battling 2-3 of Lamar, Allen, Herbert, Burrow, Stroud, Tua, Lawrence, etc. every playoff to get back. You also have guys like AR, Levis, as well as some talented rookies who will emerge. Just this year, he beat Tua, Allen and Lamar, which IMO is as impressive than any run that NE made in the AFC.

Here is where Mahomes ranks all-time: Second-best win % in the regular season Best win % in the playoffs (at least 10 games) Second-best passer rating in the regular season (by .1) Best passer rating in the playoffs The dude is Rodgers in the regular seasons level WITH Tom Brady's playoff success (and better stats). He will surpass Manning sooner than later.

Nobody would want to do that I agree. But I was just looking at it from an odds standpoint. Most likely it's going to be 1-2 games with how the NFL is with concussions and the extra game.

But according to the Colts owner, the Rams were a cautionary tale and were paying for it for mortgaging their future to win a SB. Yet they were still a playoff team last year.

So assuming you had odds attached to this…I would guess 0 and 9+ games would be the good values…like +1500 and +2000, respectively (making those up). And at the NFL level, we have only seen him fit one of these answers. But hopefully that’s not the case. It’s the NFL…it takes one hit or one bad step.

Well it is his staff now. I think he gave them a year to evaluate and now he is giving his input, starting with some positional coaching changes. Bradley gets one more year. Then next year, full scale changes if it's not where they want to be.

They could still be most of those things. It's true that they had 51 sacks, but it's also true that many of them came in a set of games and their pressure/hurry/knockdown rates were low overall. It could be true that PFF likes them for some reason. I mean they gave Dayo 12 sacks on the season. But not only do they apparently count metrics differently than PFR, they are also grading based on their own criteria. Regarding ESPN, this one is tougher. ESPN has them in the top 5 for pass rush win rate, but only one ER is even in the top 20 for ERs (and that's Ebukam back at #18). Paye and Dayo aren't even in the top 20. And then you have DeFo at #5 for IDL. PHI has the #7 and #14 ERs and the #7 IDL....yet are behind IND somehow. If we buy that IND was top 5 in pass rush win rate, then we have to buy that the OL was also #26 in pass block win rate and that CHI was top 5 in pass block win rate or that TEN was #12 in pass block win rate. Now, just about anybody who follows the NFL wouldn't buy that. And PFF will tell you that the Colts are a top 5 OL and that CHI?TEN are bottom 5. But again, the same games that lifted the season sack total could have done the same for PFF's grading by creating bias. So all of those could be true. It's the ESPN stats that don't make much sense. And if the Colts are firing their DL coach, I have to think they don't buy the ESPN stats either.

Yep. Unless Ollie parlayed last year into a promotion, it would seem like the FO and coaching staff agreed to an extent. And if it was that the Colts fired him, watch out for the whiplash from how fast the narrative turns into "well the pass rush wasn't really that good." After so many of Colts Twitter have said it was really good.

Dodds said "What are we doing? Like 13 games?" He did say he came around on AR, but of course he is going to say that.

AR came out of that with a shoulder that needed to be repaired because he had already torn his AC joint in HS, right? I wouldn't call him injury-prone, but injuries are still a concern. AR doesn't have a huge sample of games played in his lifetime and has had some injuries. And his game is based on physicality. The hope regarding his shoulder is that it repaired it for good and there won't be any additional issues. But that's only part of the concern IMO.

For real. So much drafting on potential and upside. And Ballard is constantly praised for it, as if these guys are sure things. Let’s draft a raw ER in R2 and he develops into an actual NFL player. (Banogu) Let’s draft a slow CB who lacks agility and hope he can be our lockdown CB1. (RYS) Let’s draft a raw DL player in with a torn Achilles in R2 and hope that he recovers and turns into the R1 player only we think he is. (Dayo) Let’s draft an older, but still raw TE who has one year of receiving in college in R3 and hope he learns how to run routes and catch and be our TE1. (Woods) To Ballard’s credit, the “let’s draft this older OT with only two years experience in college and hope he becomes our LT” has worked out. But there are far more that haven’t. That’s why I always contend that Ballard’s drafting post-2018 is way overrated. At the end of the day, how much of all of that “potential” has been realized into winning football games?

Evans was a top 10 draft pick who entered the league at 21 and legit broke out at 22. They are not alike at all. I actually think there is a decent chance that Evans is better the next 3 years as well.

I can't really see why Evans would want to play here, given other options that could be available. Re-signing MPJ is the path of least resistance and the one this team will take.

I misread that...that's my bad. "You have a clear agenda" says the Ballard white knight who probably posts 100x more than me and always shows up on every thread that is critical of Ballard. Talk about pot meet kettle. And it's very easy for me to have a conversation. I have my opinions and I support them. It's just difficult for you and your ilk because you don't like hearing those opinions (often times facts) and prefer to stick to excuses.

Much better? Where is the evidence that he has been much better beyond feelings? It's certainly not in the results. His predecessor won more playoffs games in half the time. The guy before that is a HOFer.