Superman

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.

New heights to me would be more pressures and better finishing. I'm not out here banging the drum for Partridge, but maybe he gets more out of the DL than we've been getting, in which case his hiring would be worth it. I make no prediction about what actually happens, though.

This is where my cynicism argument comes in. It is absolutely a defense of Ballard. He might not be good at drafting DEs, but I don't think he's shadow firing the DL coach to save himself. If it were up to me, the entire defensive staff would be gone. I get it. But would you agree that the OL coach change yielded positive results? I think we still need more talent at DL, but I also think there's juice to be squeezed out of the guys we already have, specifically in the pass rush.

Philosophical question: How many "good players" does it take to offset the absence of one "great" player? Would losing Ryan Kelly, Mo Alie-Cox, and Grover Stewart be worth adding a player like Justin Jefferson?

I think you've been highly sarcastic, pretty aggressive, somewhat hostile, and in certain instances I've felt like my comments are misrepresented. None of that contributes to an environment for a productive discussion. I appreciate the apology, but that's why there's so much pushback. I actually don't have any problem with a good faith discussion about this stuff. But when it goes to the extremes every time, it's aggravating.

I don't know if you caught my earlier posts on this topic in this thread. I never believed the Sneed stuff. I was already critical of how we handled the re-signings, and said if the Sneed deal happens, I'll change my tune, but we know how that went. I agree. I'm not super impressed by being a couple plays away from the playoffs, because I think our goals should be much higher than that. And spending resources on players that, IMO, don't get us there, kind of signals more status quo, vs a real attempt to push through to the top of the conference. I would have rather sat on that cap space and guaranteed money, than spend it on non pass rushing DL and non pass covering LBs. I have said that for a week now. I don't see this the same way you do, though. I think we need to see our QB actually do the job. We saw Luck carry a bad team, and then we didn't give him the proper support. We don't even know if Richardson can carry a good team. Until we have more clarity on the QB, we're still a year away from being a year away. Which is why I would have been fine keeping that cap space. And like I said earlier, I think the best way to properly support Richardson on offense is with the draft. If we don't do that, I'll be even more critical of Ballard than I was last week.

No, just bothered by the combativeness. I don't even think we disagree all that much, but it feels like you're looking for a fight.

Then you completely missed my point. See my post above. To the bolded, what do you gain from this? It's pretty baity, IMO.

I'm actually saying the opposite about 2023. I'm already on record about this. It would have been nice to win the division last year with a backup QB, but there's still significant distance between this team and real contenders. Winning a weak division after beating up on bad QBs all year wouldn't have changed that.

So absolutely no relevance to my post that you quoted. What did you think my point was?

What's wrong with that? Do you think the previous DL coach had been doing a good job? I think coaching is a part of the problem. I've been saying that since before the 2021 season. I also think talent is a part of the problem. I can say I don't really like anything the defensive staff is doing, and I'm not a fan of the way Ballard handled the defensive roster, either. But I don't think there's anything wrong with replacing the DL coach when plenty of us think the DL is underperforming. That list is long. Feels kind of padded, unless you were expecting Gerri Green and Titus Leo to be standout pass rushers. We need better pass rush. This is not something where we disagree. I've said several times that I think DE might be a blind spot for Ballard, and he'd be better off adding a veteran. In fact, that worked reasonably well, and then the young guys weren't able to fill the holes. But I think saying there's nothing to show for the investments on the DL is a stretch, right? Especially when our biggest investment on the DL is Buckner. And I didn't want to keep Stewart, but he outperformed his draft status, and lived up to his second contract.