shasta519

I wasn’t painting him as a megalomaniac. That’s a really extreme take. Irsay was the one who publicly called Wentz a mistake. After that 2021 season, Ballard said he had no regrets about making that move…that they thought it was the right move at the time. Maybe he later changed that, but I can’t really find that quote.

On paper, I think you would find that last year's schedule and this upcoming season (which is based on last season) are in a similar range, depending on who or what measures it. But teams change over the offseason. As will the QB play. Last year's schedule included (7) games against backup QBs (PIT, NE, ATL, CIN, LV, TEN, CLE) and (4) games against rookie QBs (CAR, HOU, TEN). That made up nearly 2/3 of the schedule and they went 7-4 in that stretch...2-4 against the rest (BAL, JAC x2. LAR, TB, NO). The SOS on defense actually ended bottom 5 too. But when you factor in the QBs they actually faced (like Trubisky vs. Pickett or PJ Walker vs. Joe Flacco), it's should actually skew more towards bottom 3. And even with that SOS, last year's defense was not very good (28th in ppg allowed; #20 in EPA). This has been my biggest concern about running it back. Hard to trust much from last year. I felt like they needed to build in some insurance in case that SOS got harder. If it does (and it should), this defense could be just bad. The upcoming schedule will feature only one of those same QBs (Levis), on what should be an improved TEN team. You also have HOU improving as well. And JAC swept the Colts last year. So the AFCS will be a much tougher route to the playoffs. And in addition to two games against TEN, there are likely only (5) games against potential backup/rookie/bad QBs (NYG, DEN, NE, MIN, CHI). So likely 10 games (vs. 6 last year) against decent-great QBs. For a 9-8 team, switching 4 games from bad QBs to good QBs is a pretty noteworthy difference. And what if Williams (CHI) and Daniels/Maye (NE) are good right away? Or what if MIN trades up to take McCarthy and he's capable on a fairly loaded roster? Then it's possibly 12-13 games. I think Vegas has the O/U on wins at 8.5, but the sharp money has been going to the Under. Clay has them favored by win % in 7 games and tied in 1 games. So seems like he's right in step with Vegas. I actually think a 9-8 season would be fairly successful, assuming there aren't a few huge injuries at QB.

There are def people who thought Minshew raised the floor of this team, given he’s not a rookie and had played with Steichen for two years. When Minshew was signed, I think just about every Colts fan approved. So why was that? Because they thought he was a fun guy to have around? No, I think most thought they could win games with him. Maybe not 9 games, but they didn’t win a game where AR played the majority of the snaps. This is one narrative I will never understand. Minshew did what he was supposed to when they signed him and what people thought he could do…and he has been reduced to being considered a scrub backup QB (you didn’t say that, but I often hear this). I think it’s unfair to a QB who finished top 20 in EPA/play. It’s not like AR finished much higher in his short sample…and he didn’t face the same level of defenses.

Has he? I know he has talked about other position groups, like LT after the Pryor year. But he’s never said he should have taken a different approach at QB.

I jumped into this convo about twisting what he said in that quote, but I don’t think I have ever said Ballard wishes he had acted differently. If he does, he’s never really admitted his regrets. And he hasn’t exactly acted like it because he’s stayed true to his process. I do agree that Reich and Ballard were in lock-step on the direction of the team (in all facets). Which is why I don’t get why Reich takes so much blame.

What argument? It’s what the man said at his opening day presser. He said it twice, including when being asked about having Luck at QB. Nobody’s twisting what he said. He gave his thoughts. He made other comments over the year about drafting a QB, but his actions support that he actually felt it wasn’t about one guy, hence the approach.

Willis and Ridder were QB2 and QB3. They were on Day 2 dart throws because it was a weak draft class. Eason was QB6 in a class that featured (4) R1 QBs. No QBs were taken between mid R2 (Hurts) and mid R4 (Eason). They’re all dart throws to a degree, but not really the same. Eason was like tier 3 and not really a serious pick for a team that needed a QB long-term.

That’s not really twisting what Ballard said. It’s actually what he did say. It was an organizational philosophy and he meant it. And it seemed to influence future decisions. But the reason that quote gets brought up is because many Colts have and still do use the Luck retiring excuse as to why Ballard hasn’t been successful. And these are Ballard’s own words basically saying that it’s not an excuse.

Major hole and just hole are subjective. Did last year’s team have holes? Yes. And it’s pretty much the same team. So I don’t think they have filled any holes yet. Obviously, the draft will provide at least one player expected to make an immediate impact.

Never ends well for whistleblowers, does it? Better to take your soft landing spot in BAL on Harbaugh's staff and then try to work your way back into a HC gig if you can. Which is exactly what he did.

I don't think Bill Polian was even making the day to day decisions...it was Chris at that point. So not sure what his involvement would have been. But it was reported that Bill was at the Stanford/Duke game (in Duke) on September 11 scouting Luck...the day before the Colts got smacked by HOU in Week 1. I know they scout year-round, but interesting nonetheless that the Colts are scouting the no-doubt #1 overall pick, while there are nonsense stories about Manning coming back that year. There are certainly levels to this whole thing. Like Irsay agreeing to Peyton's big new contract, despite Manning having two failed surgeries that offseason. Per Manning, he couldn't even throw at that point. Now I don't know what he told Irsay or what Irsay knew, but if he knew anything, he didn't do do his due diligence at all. And then you have Manning insisting on a massive $28M option bonus as part of his new contract. When have we ever heard of this happening? It would have been a risk on its own to pick that up regardless (cause of the neck), but it was also due right before the start of the league year, so the Colts had to pick it up and pay him $28M if they wanted to trade him. So it effectively acted as a poison pill and granted Peyton his free agency. We all know Manning wanted more shots at a ring, and the Polian-era team was done. Because of the lockout, the contract was agreed upon in late July...like right before TC started. Within a few weeks, Manning has a setback in TC and then JMV leaks about neck surgery. And fast forward to March of 2012, the Colts have the #1 pick and the rights to Luck...and Manning is now recovered and on a FA tour de force. It could all just be a coincidence, but it sure worked out very neatly.

It was pretty clear he was terrible by about the 4th game, yet he did go on to start and finish 4 more games. And they had Dan O. who had outplayed him in the preseason (and would later in the season when finally started). But it's not like I was unhappy about the outcome. I can just see why some find it sketchy. The Colts aren't the only ones who have done this though. Cherry-picking some data, I found that (since 2011) Painter's 6-game stretch (his 3rd-8th games) was only the 4th worst by EPA for QBs who have started 6 or more games consecutively in a season. Behind Painter are Deshone Kizer, Zack Mettenberger and Josh Rosen. 3 teams wound with the #1 overall pick and drafted a QB and the other with the #2 overall pick and drafted a QB. Colts were sort of trendsetters I guess.

Yep. Prob should have lost to BAL and should have beaten CLE. This is my issue with the "one play away" narrative I keep hearing. It was a mis-execution. They happen throughout games. If the Colts were "one play away" from beating HOU, they were also "one play away" from losing to NE, when Jones threw a duck with Gesicki open in the EZ late 4Q. It was a truly terrible pass that most QBs don't make. Colts couldn't score that game, so even if they only needed a FG to tie after, they probably don't get it. It just tends to balance out by the end of the season.

Not here, but there are still those on Colts Twitter in the sub reddit that do. Not that they represent all Colts fans, but there are some that still hold him in a very high regard. I would argue that the media (not all but some) has a tendency to portray him in a very positive light too. Not sure where they would rank him, but my guess is it would be higher than many Colts fans.

This teams has several of them IMO. They don't currently have a proven FS, which is important to run Gus' scheme. We can hope that maybe Cross can play there, but it's still a hole until then. They maybe have a CB1 in Brents, but he's still unproven and only play half of the season. I would add a proven TE as well. The room is full of rotational guys. And we have seen the importance of legit TE1. But mostly, the core is now aging. Many of them won't be here after AR's rookie deal is up. I didn't agree with running it back. But if they are going to do it, then they should absolutely try to take advantage of the QB rookie deal window and supplement through FA. Hunter wasn't the only FA out there either.

I think a big reason people are angry about Sneed because some people on Colts Twitter gassed them up with what now seem like nonsense reports. The way Ballard tells it is that it wasn't really ever close. They explored it early on, but moved on. So either those reports were made up or somebody was trying to inflate the cost to get TEN to give up more.

But on the flip side, Luck initially being here allowed him to build up the team in the first place. It was a pretty big advantage, especially when the Colts got the #3 pick in the draft in 2018. They didn't have to use draft capital on QB or address it like nearly all FOs do. So Ballard losing that sort of just leveled the playing field in a way. It shouldn't really be an excuse or a curve that we evaluate him on. If anything, it has allowed us to better evaluate the roster he's built. Since Luck left, we have seen several types of QB play. In the years where they had average QB play (2019, 2021, 2023), the team overall was pretty average. winning 7-9 games. In the year where he had really good QB play (2020), they were a good team, but not great, winning 11 games but losing in the WC round. In the year where they had really bad QB play (2022), they were really bad, winning only 4 games. This is why I disagree that he builds great rosters. This team has never played above the level of QB they have or been able to overcome it. That's probably true of most NFL teams, but it also just means Ballard is ordinary. Yet, he's revered by many. And I think many fans are tired of ordinary. And tired of hearing about the process. It's been evangelized and defended so much that one might think it's more important than results. We will see what happens with AR this year. But to your point, even if AR plays well, I don't know if Ballard has the ability to get this team from good to great.

True. But I think the choke job in MIN and letting Davis Mills complete a hail mary to beat them in W18 made up for that.

Likely because they got a bit creative with the contract structures. But the Colts also backloaded every deal they signed a bit, so I really don't know where all that cap went.

Did not know that about Coyer. I know this is a controversial topic for most Colts fans, but that season was clearly strange. It was always weird to me how they lost the first two games and Kerry Collins just sort of vanished. I know he had a concussion, but he was on the active roster for more than a month after that...and then went on IR. That move seemed like nothing more than a PR move cause they knew Peyton was getting that surgery. But Collins was also atrocious in the couple games he played. It was also weird how Painter got the QB2 out of preseason, despite Dan O. playing so much better. And then when Collins got hurt, Painter got to take over and would start NINE games, despite being horrendous. Back then, Polian had his weekly radio show where he would take calls...and for some inexplicable reason continued doing it during 2011. It was must-listen. They would always ask him about why is Painter still playing and he would just get combative. They didn't pull the plug on Painter until after Week 12. At that point, the Colts were 0-11 (Painter was 0-9) and every other team had at least two wins. Plus, the Colts held tiebreakers too. So it basically meant they just had to go 2-3 or worse the rest of the way to secure it, assuming another team lost out. And with BAL and NE coming up, they really just needed to not win all 3 against the AFCS teams. Seemed like a safe time to make the move. And Dan O. did lead them to two wins, which means there's at least a decent chance he changes a couple of those previous 11 losses into Ws as well, which would have cost them Luck.

You mean Maye being first on the list, or before last year's draft class? I don't see anybody from last year getting chosen over him personally. Of course now, it's easy to say Stroud would be.

Didn't see this before I responded, but that's exactly how I would have had it, at least up until Hooker. I would put Penix either before Levis or after him. He's a better prospect than Hooker for sure.

If I had to guess, he'd probably be sandwiched in between the big 3 and the second tier like McCarthy, Penix, Nix. Without the benefit of hindsight, I think Young, Stroud and AR all would have been after Williams, Maye and Daniels.

There's a rather large difference between paying a large contract to a 26 year-old and a 29 year-old. Not to mention the 5th year option gives you cost control over another year. Do you want a guy who is in his prime or a guy who could be 30? 22 year-olds don't automatically take 2-3 years to develop. And 25 year-old doesn't always make the transition. So it's just a bet either way. And if a team had to bet on one of these happening, teams seem to be taking the younger player early. Raimann was never really a R1 pick anyways...he was a mid-R2 prospect (who actually fell a round). So this is sort of all a hypothetical based on a player that hasn't really existed, at least in recent NFL history. But based on what we have seen, when given the chance, teams are going younger. We can't see their draft boards of course, but it's pretty logical to assume that a team has passed on a player in R1 due to age or another player's age was the deciding factor, just by how the draft has fallen.

But there's always a chance he's maxed out as he's already in his prime. And when his rookie deal ends, he's going to need a big contract for his age 29-32 seasons, which provides a bit more risk for age-based regression or injuries. That same 22 year-old might take 2-3 years to develop, but he also is more likely to have a chance at getting to a higher level when he gets there. And when it comes time to extend him, he's going to be playing those age 26-29 seasons, typically seen as prime seasons, so less assumed risk. I am not arguing whether this the right way to do it, I am just trying to get into the minds of a GM. And this way of thinking makes some sense to me when it comes to R1 picks. Of course, it all assumes you get the pick right in either case. The actual shrewd thing to do would be to draft an older prospect, get those prime mid 20s seasons on a cheap rookie deal and then let him walk in FA if you can. But R1 picks are usually seen as franchise players, so this is much tougher to do.