Superman

I meant to mention this. I give Ballard some grace because Campbell got hurt, but a lot of good WRs went in the second and third round in 2019, and we didn't any of them. Lockett doesn't fit, drafted in 2015. Also, philosophically, I think there are different views of X, Z, slot guys than you want to acknowledge. There's no reason a slot guy can't be your most dynamic receiver, and I think big slot is used all around the league in the best offenses. I think even the most dynamic Z guys play more slot than most people realize. I know there's an ideal prototype, and some players only fit one spot (Pittman is an X, he plays big slot also but I don't think he adds a lot of value there), but this is all pretty fluid, IMO. My point is that I'm okay with projecting a slot guy as your dynamic receiving threat, if you have a plan and can pull it off. It's just an unconventional way of getting there. I think the X is more abundant, and the Z comes at a much higher premium. This is the year where we're in good position to get a potential Z, but I still don't think it happens, and a part of that is Ballard's philosophy with draft capital. We'll see.

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.

You're right about TY, but they drafted Campbell and Pittman in back to back years, in the second round. You might disagree with their evaluation of those players, or their intended roles, but they had specific intentions for those players. And both were slowed by injuries -- MPJ in 2020, and Campbell for sure in 2019 and 2020. More on Campbell... I think it would be good to revisit the opening game in 2020 to see what the intention was with Campbell. I feel like you kind of marginalize him as "a slot," when slot receivers have been used for dynamic production for a long time now. To me, it seemed like Campbell was going to be a huge part of the offense in 2020, and then he got hurt on the opening drive of the second game. Again, you might have preferred a different strategy, but I don't agree that this is an indication of Ballard not valuing dynamic receiver play. That's odd. He's meant to be a downfield receiver, he runs more go routes than anyone else in the league. But his QBs have been Matt Ryan and Gardner Minshew. Pierce might not be the guy we need him to be, but I think that's what they had in mind by drafting him.

This is the main area where I said I see it differently from Ballard. I think we're on the same page here. I addressed the LT/LG thing in my previous post. Regarding the bolded, I think the unrealized strategy in 2019 speaks to a previously established desire to be more dynamic in the passing game. (It seems like you're holding Ballard responsible for not having said this out loud in the past. I think if you go back and listen to some of the pressers in previous years, you'll notice that 80% of the questioning was about the QB position. So I blame the press room for that more than I blame Ballard.) Two years ago, he drafted Alec Pierce. I think they'll draft another good WR prospect this year. I don't have much doubt that the Colts want a dynamic passing attack. I think they've tried, and for various reasons -- scouting, coaching, QB play, injuries -- it hasn't worked out so far. But it's not because Ballard doesn't value explosive pass catchers, IMO.

Got it. There's been a lot of hyperbole lately, I'm not always sure what's meant to be literal. I mostly agree with Ballard here. I just alluded to this in my response to GC8818. Scheme and QBing can mitigate edge pressure, but it requires good interior blocking to mitigate inside pressure... Inside pressure is more disruptive to a passing attack than edge pressure... You can't scheme interior run blocking, your blockers have to be able to hold up. It's not conventional, but I don't necessarily agree that elite LT is more valuable than elite LG. Obviously, you can't be deficient at either spot. I don't fully agree here, either. These have all gone up and down at various times throughout Ballard's tenure. Pass rush has never really been a strength, but it wasn't deficient in 2019-2020. Pass protection was excellent from the second half of 2018 through 2020. TY Hilton was still a 1,200 yard WR in 2018, and then in 2019 they invested in Campbell and Funchess to diversify the pass game, but wound up with Brissett as the QB; Hilton started getting hurt, Funchess got hurt, Campbell got hurt. You might see some of those players differently, but I think injuries and QB instability are what undermined the production in these areas. Not so much roster composition.

I get where you're coming from, but I don't even know if this is true. The biggest example of Ballard "overvaluing" a non premium position is Quenton Nelson, who is only the 4th highest paid guard in the NFL. The Browns set the market for Grover Stewart when they paid Dalvin Tomlinson $14.25m/year last year. I also think there's a lot more grey area around the league regarding which positions are most valued, and how that value is realized. For example, a team might value WRs, but think the draft value at that position is inflated. I think 3T is a premium position if the player is a consistent pass rush threat, and I might prefer a good 3T to an edge rusher. You don't mention LT, not sure if that's intentional; I think most people view LT as premium, but I think it's a little inflated because a good coach and QB are the foundation of pass protection, not the LT (of course LT is still important). So I think trench play is highly valued around the league, more than fans and Internet experts realize. And I'd argue that, after 2023 when so many QBs got hurt, and teams couldn't run the ball, OL trench play -- including interior OL -- will continue to be more highly valued than fans think it should be. Where I think I separate from Ballard on DL is I don't think you need to spend premium money on DL if they can't rush the passer. I think non-pass rush DL are highly replaceable, and what's important is depth, not whether a good NT knocks half a yard off your opponents rushing average. But I think an interior DL who is a nightmare to block on passing downs is critically important.

I think the bolded is too far. Ballard values certain positions more than a lot of fans seem to, and his 'you pay good players' philosophy means he's okay with paying a RB $14m rather than trying to replace his production for $5-6m. But I don't think he puts them all on the same level of importance. 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.) So he hits on Grover Stewart, and pays him (that's two of his three deepest convictions). He hits on Leonard, Nelson, Smith, and pays them. If Quincy Wilson, Tarell Basham, Zach Banner, Parris Campbell, Rock Ya-Sin, etc., turned out to be stars, Ballard would have prioritized keeping them on second contracts. I don't think he decided to have a roster where a lot of money was allocated to "non premium" positions; he drafted players who were good fits, they played well, and he kept them. And he avoided spending a lot of money in free agency -- even on "premium" positions -- because he wanted to reserve cap for the players he drafted. Where I think he might have a blind spot is in evaluating young edge players. Stitches mentioned that he wants his edges to be good against the run, which maybe penalizes the true standout pass rush guys. I don't think Polian was good at evaluating young DTs; he balanced out his deficiency by acquiring veteran DTs. (But Polian did have a positional value philosophy: QB, players who score TDs, create turnovers, and pressure the QB. Some might find that flawed because he valued RBs in the first round, and valued pass rush edge players even if they were bad against the run, which is kind of the opposite of what Ballard does.) Ballard got some good veteran production out of Autry and Houston, but his young guys didn't meet the task when those vets left. I will say, while Paye and Dayo are no Freeney and Mathis, they're pretty good, and I think people are somewhat dismissive of them. As I've said, I would rather reallocate cap resources to specific "premium" positions than keep paying a high cost for a non-pass rush NT. But I don't agree that Ballard has no regard for positional value.

I agree with this. I've tried to make the same point. That might be true, but I think we're still light in specific areas that correlate to winning at a high level, especially on defense. And that's partly why I'm not all that excited about the idea of keeping the core together. Again, my earlier point was that there are a times where a premier talent at a premier position is more valuable to a team than lower tier talent at less critical positions. In theory, having a dynamic, standout WR at $30m is more valuable than having a second tier WR at $23m + a rotational DT at $7m.

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.

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.

It was a philosophical question. We're not trading for JJ, especially not with Pittman at $23m/year (although I'd point out that's only a 23% increase, and I'd argue JJ is worth the premium). I guess this is your answer below... That's logical. This is how you build a good roster and manage the cap wisely to keep that roster together. You'll make the playoffs most years. It's basically what the Chiefs and Ravens are doing. I think there's one flaw in this approach. In any given year, there's a team like the Rams or Bucs from 3-4 years ago, or like the Browns or Eagles right now, spending cash way over cap, to try to push their way to the top of the league. They know they'll have to reset and get rid of some players in a couple years, but they hope to increase their odds to compete for a short period of time. And if they win a SB, then it's worth it. The Chiefs have one of the most special QBs of all time. The Ravens have a two time MVP at QB. I would say both teams draft better than the Colts (especially the Ravens), and Steichen is still new but for right now I'd say they're both better coached as well. Their margin for error is much greater than ours. The way you offset having a $30m WR is to draft well multiple years in a row, have a good HC, and have a really good QB. And that just so happens to be the formula for success in the NFL in general.

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.

Kravitz, is that you?

Partly, yes.

Sounds like too much work, never mind.

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

Sometimes I wonder if this guy actually has any personality at all. Seeing this picture was good.

I think that's up to Steichen. But yeah, it would be nice to have a rock solid roster around him, on both sides of the ball. Watch the Rams game. I'm not super worried about that, but I understand that this kind of pressure builds over time. I think they're just going to be a year ahead of us. Stroud was already more pro ready than Richardson, and he played a full season. I'm not weary of a team being good in our division, I welcome it. I think it keeps the high standard right in our faces. Like I said earlier, I'm not all that enthused about potentially winning a bad division while playing a last place schedule. I want the Colts to be a top four AFC team, every year. Having another potential top four team in the division is a good thing. But to your point, yes, the Texans are probably doing a better job of building around Stroud than we are of building around Richardson, all things considered. Just minor pushback here. Watch the Ravens game. The defensive roster isn't great, no argument there. But I think Bradley's work as a DC is malpractice. His only answer to his conservative, non-disguised Cover 3 getting shredded was to use even more conservative, less-disguised Cover 4. And that was only marginally better. I think we need to run more coverages and offer some kind of disguise, and it at least gives the secondary and the pass rush some kind of a shot to get into a rhythm. I don't think there's any excuse for the way Bradley calls this defense on a weekly basis.

I think the peak was probably 2019-2021. Imagine having a trustworthy QB in 2021, with JT having an All Pro season, and the defense forcing 30+ turnovers and being top ten in scoring... We're probably not beating the Chiefs, Bills or Bengals in the playoffs, but maybe we're in the conversation. That was on the back of two pretty good drafts, 2018 and 2020, and would have required better QB play. And I still don't like what we did on defense, schematically. When we look back, I think there's a lot of meaningful context. That's a big contrast from the persistent war chant of 'no division titles' that always pops up. And still, I think Ballard leaves a lot of meat on the bone because of his rigid methods, and he isn't a good enough drafter to make up for it.

I think you're dodging the question, but fine. Ebukam, Kelly, Stewart, for Justin Jefferson. Put it this way -- would the Vikings accept that trade offer? If we offered those three guys, plus two firsts, the Vikings would say 'we don't want those players, so throw in another high draft pick, and then we'll seriously consider it but probably still tell you no after a couple hours.' My team building philosophy is get the QB, support the QB with high value positional players, fill out the rest of the roster however you can. If it costs you a few Ebukams and Kellys, so be it. And you're not seriously asking about a WR's playoff record, right? (Especially not a WR with four years in the league...) What was Larry Fitzgerald's playoff record before 2008? Be serious, please.

I think 2025 is the year. Either we're really contending or on the way, or that's Ballard's last year. I think 2024 has to be very bad for him to be fired after this season.

I don't have any problem with a second round WR, or a DB in the first round. You and I probably view the draft very differently.

I don't see a lot of value in the ranking. Truth is I'm way more familiar with Ballard than with any other NFL GM, so ranking him isn't something I want to get into. I don't have a big problem with anyone thinking he's 18th best, but I also wasn't promoting the past rankings that had him in the top five or ten. Should he be fired? Ehh... I would have been fine with firing him after 2022. I thought there was a chance it would happen. Once he was retained, I think his clock was reset, and I'm fine with that. I think the QB situation was the major reason the team didn't reach its potential in previous years, and I think a lot of that was out of Ballard's control. By keeping Ballard, I think Irsay signaled that he felt the same way. So now, it's about whether Richardson is good enough, and whether we can sufficiently build around him. And it's too soon to really discuss that. Philosophically, I think Ballard's methods and his rigid cap strategy will continue to distance him from the very best GMs in the NFL. He's risk averse, he puts himself in too small of a box when it comes to player acquisition, and I don't think he sees the value in strategically breaking his cap management methods to make a brief push despite the fact that a quarter of the league is doing this in any given year. For us to compete for SBs with Ballard as GM, we'll have to absolutely crush several drafts in a row, and Richardson will have to be amazing. And that's probably putting us at odds with reality.

Yeah, he's not changing anything for Buckner or Stewart. I think Paye and Dayo still have a lot of room to grow, though. And the DL coach doesn't just teach technique, he also teaches scheme. So stunts, slants, how we'll defend options, etc., there can be a strategic improvement with a new DL coach. We'll see if any of that actually happens. End of the day, I agree with everyone who thinks the DL needs better players. I think that's true of the entire defense.

Totally false. The fact of the matter is that the conversations on Ballard almost always get pushed to the margins. And that's not enjoyable for anyone except the people who get pleasure from bashing the GM.