Superman

There's a lot that can be said about this. But before my point is lost, I'm saying that I think suggesting that Ballard and his staff can't evaluate players so they just draft based on RAS score is a pretty crazy thing to say. As for the rest, I think people have different ideas of how teams evaluate players and put together their draft boards, and then how decisions are made on draft day. And I'm pretty confident that none of us really knows the process well enough to speak definitively on it. But I do think some of these discussions take place mostly in the margins, which gets to be tedious. For example, if a GM was perceived as favoring college production over athletic testing, I think people would be critical of that approach. My thinking is that there are multiple factors involved in player evaluation, including college production and athletic testing. I don't think this is a situation where you can make a pie chart to represent how Ballard or any GM values each factor, across the board. I think every evaluation is different. However, the main value in athletic testing is in creating a baseline for physical ability and performance. In general, players of a certain physical profile are more likely to succeed in the NFL, and players who don't measure up can basically be eliminated from consideration. I don't think Ballard or anyone else is saying 'we don't know how to predict what players will be good, so let's just take the best athletes and see what happens.' Yet, that's pretty much what PR's theory above suggests.

Meh. I think a lot of it is overly sensational (like calling Richardson a bust, which is head shaking to me). However, it's true that the Texans are in really good position. But that's a good thing, IMO. I don't want to be in a cupcake division, I want our team to have a significant measuring stick opponent every year, and twice a year is even better. I want us to be striving to keep up with a team with a hotshot young QB. The more, the better. It raises the bar for our own team.

More explosive than Pittman, sure. I wouldn't think he's the kind of player that we're missing, though, and I don't think he and Pittman complement each other very well. To me, there's a lot of overlap. Similar to Tee Higgins. I will admit though, I didn't remember that McLaurin ran a 4.35 forty, that's better than I thought. What about Brandon Aiyuk?

I think it was Fred Warner. I think the LVE thing was rookie year, when LVE was a Pro Bowler but Leonard wasn't. Leonard wound up All Pro and DROY. By the way, LVE was really good.

This is an interesting angle to me. You are discrediting Ballard's ability to evaluate players while propping up Steichen's ability to evaluate players on offense. I'm not sure why Steichen is getting credit for the Eagles' roster decisions when their front office is one of the best in the NFL. Steichen was with the Chargers when Hurts and Goedert were drafted, and was in the building for three months when they drafted DeVonta Smith. I hope Steichen helps Ballard put together a more dynamic roster on offense (and in general), but I wonder why he's getting the reputation as a guy who is going to save the Colts from Chris Ballard his perceived poor player evaluation. And the RAS thing is just weird, and has taken on a mind of its own.

Irsay did make statements indicating his hope that Luck would change his mind, but I doubt that he did anything to discourage drafting a QB 'just in case.' And if Ballard allowed his decision making to be influenced by Irsay's hopefulness, then that's bad work on his part. I wouldn't say that Ballard didn't have much of a say on the Wentz decision. I think he and Irsay deferred to Reich and got him the QB that he was banging the table for. And I think 2020 was similar; I don't think we sign Rivers if Reich isn't the HC. The three main decision makers were involved in the decision, but it's pretty obvious that Reich was the strongest advocate for the choices that were made in those years. And that's not to say that they would have drafted Herbert or Love, although that would have been nice. But knowing that they felt they had built a contention-quality roster, which was undermined by the QB situation, it makes sense that they would have been slanted toward a veteran rather than waiting for a rookie to develop. Either way, I think firing Reich and keeping Ballard, then immediately drafting a QB (along with some of the comments made by all three men along the way), gives us some insight into Irsay's thinking on the way the QB situation was handled.

I get your point, and I'm assuming it's partly tongue in cheek, but I want to counter as a point of discussion. First, I don't think this is a representation of real player evaluation. I think it's the way a lot of fans view draft prospects, but I think NFL teams evaluate by watching the prospects play, and matching what they see with what they know about the player and the team he's on. For example, it's likely that Player 1 has better coaching and better teammates, which contributes to his production and performance. Being able to make that distinction requires being familiar with the respective rosters, staffs, and schemes of both teams. And that level of nuance is something that most people on the Internet can't be bothered with. But the total evaluation could easily lead a staff to believe that Player 2 is the better prospect, and it's not simply about the RAS score. Second, to get in the weeds on the RAS thing... There are about 20,000 scholarship players in every year class in D1 football. About 400 of them will make it to the NFL, and about half of those will last more than two seasons in the NFL. The overwhelming majority of the rest are simply not good enough physically -- not big enough, fast enough, strong enough, or not willing/able to maximize the physical talents they have. Athletic testing and physical measurements are a way to determine a baseline of ability, and RAS is a composite of that testing. We have decades of testing, and can analyze what traits are common among successful players at their respective positions. It makes sense to apply that knowledge to scouting, and I would bet that the majority of players who are at the bottom end of testing don't even make it, let alone have significant success. And then, for the outlier standout performers who don't test well, there are other questions to be considered. Was the performance mostly based on favorable circumstances, or is there a significant trait/ability that makes up for other deficiencies? Long story short, there is an obvious correlation between testing and NFL success, and RAS is kind of a representation of testing that makes it somewhat easier to digest and compare athletic prospects. But I don't think any decisions are being made solely on the basis of that comparison.

I hadn't really thought about that in a while. I never allowed myself to seriously entertain the possibility that Luck might come back, and I think it's probably malpractice if Ballard got caught up in that thinking. And I guess you're saying maybe Irsay wanted to keep the seat warm in case Luck changed his mind, which is possible, but I think unlikely. It's an interesting thought, though. For me, I think they laid a foundation and were ready for a strong three year push from 2019 to 2021, and they tried to salvage as much of that as they could. They were stuck with Brissett for 2019, but they were clearly thinking they had a good enough team to be in the playoffs the next two years. I think that's accurate -- we finished half a game behind the Titans in 2020, and then the famous collapse the next year. They should have come out of the 2020 draft with the prospective QB of the future. Instead, we signed Rivers, and traded for Buckner (and I really like Buckner). It's obvious why they did what they did, but it didn't work out. I think that's just what Irsay did when he fired Reich and kept Ballard. And it's why the 'seven years, no division titles' criticism rings hollow to me. It's fine to disagree with the decision to keep Ballard, but it seems pretty obvious that the organization hit the reset button after 2022. And I'd argue that things are off to a solid start since then.

You think Terry McLaurin is an explosive WR?

I think people tend to be overly critical with the hindsight draft stuff, but yeah, AJ Brown was my favorite WR prospect in 2019. I'm not a DK guy, I get what people like, but he's a one note guy. We took Rock Ya-Sin with our first pick, and Parris Campbell with our next pick. Campbell I think could have been really good if healthy, but still, Brown was the guy IMO.

That's my point with the hypothetical. I don't think it makes sense to constantly reduce the evaluation of Pittman down to his yards/catch. I think that stat is significantly impacted by the quality of the QB play, and to me, that's plain and obvious. We had basically the same conversation a few weeks ago, so I don't want to belabor the point. We definitely agree that Pittman is not the prototypical #1 WR that we need if we want to really compete at the top level. And while I think we'll probably re-sign him at a higher yearly average than you think we should, I would not be overly hurt if we could trade him for the value of a late first rounder. But given the fact that he basically embodies what Ballard and Steichen describe when they talk about the kind of player and person they want on the team, I don't think he's going anywhere. Also, I think it's fair to assume that the Colts are looking for the prototype #1 WR. They reportedly wanted Waddle from the Dolphins, or Watson from the Packers, two different players in playing style and body composition, but both much more explosive than Pittman. Ballard also talked about getting more explosive offensively. I'm not making any predictions, but it seems like they know the offense is lacking that dynamic ability, specifically in the passing game.

Seems like David Tepper has the same problem. Not the cheap part...

Seems like Dorsey was a jerk, which is what got him fired. I don't think that would be a factor with Ballard and the Colts. And I think it's interesting that Dorsey got fired right after Ballard left, like maybe Ballard was the counterweight to Dorsey, and once Ballard was gone they knew that Dorsey's management style would cause problems. That's just me theorizing... But Dorsey was an exceptional roster builder, there's no question about that. Which is why it was so shocking when he got fired.

What prompted my response was your statement that "defense first teams simply win more regular season games." And now you're talking about playoff results. Doesn't the success of that team that was weighted toward the offense, with a conservative defense, somewhat undermine your position? I'd actually be interested in an analysis of what kind of team tends to win more regular season games. My initial thinking is that the analysis would favor more offensive minded teams in the regular season.

What provable performance measures do you think would/should have resulted in Pagano or Reich being fired sooner than they were?

If the Eagles are willing to eat that much cap space to trade their best offensive weapon, in his prime, it would say a lot about his personality, IMO. I think some critical parts of that roster got old pretty quickly, and they need to reshape certain position groups, but a player like AJ Brown should be a foundational piece even if they're going to do a rebuild. So I don't think they'll trade him, but if they do, buyer beware.

Why would the Eagles trade AJ Brown? He's their best offensive player, he's just 27 years old, and his cap hit in 2024 is $12.4m. Trading him before June 1 would result in a $41m cap penalty in 2024. Trading him after June 1 would result in a $10m cap penalty in 2024, and a $31m cap penalty in 2025. And the 2024 cap hit for the new team would be less than $2m, so this would be a gift from the Eagles. I think it's highly unlikely that the Eagles would want to trade him. So if there were anything to these 'rumors,' it would probably mean that there's something concerning going on behind the scenes with him. He's already displayed some diva tendencies. I agree that AJ Brown is the kind of talent the Colts need at WR. It's the other stuff that concerns me.

Didn't the Colts win more games in a ten year span than any other team in NFL history, playing mostly a conservative Tampa 2 defense?

Okay but the argument isn't that his production would be different if he had a different QB. The argument is that his production would be different if he had a better QB. To me, that seems obvious. And the QBs we've had the last three years have all displayed some critical limitations. The offense was 30% 'quick pass to Pittman.' Look at his charts. His average depth of target was 8.8, 134th in the league. Mo Alie Cox was at 9.7. https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/charts/player/michael-pittman/PIT228050/season https://www.fantasylife.com/tools/air-yards I think it can be both. Like I said, Pittman isn't ever going to be a 16 yards/catch guy. But 10.8 is the number you're hanging over his head, and I think that's heavily influenced by the QBing and play calling. I think the strengths and shortcomings of the QB impact every receiver. What the QB does well and struggles with flavors every element of the passing game. And I think that's been a significant factor throughout Pittman's career. No disagreement there. That's also obvious. But it also seems to be the entire substance of your opinion on Pittman. He's 82nd in yards/catch, but surely you wouldn't argue that he's the 82nd best pass catcher in the NFL, right? So there's clearly value in his play beyond his yards/catch. And for me (and other like-minded observers), since I think his yards/catch is strongly influenced by the QBing and play calling, it's a stat that needs to be contextualized. I think the same is true of yards/catch, but that requires a bit more insight. And yeah, I think saying 'he's a 1,000 yard WR, of course he's a #1!' is similarly flawed. Okay, but back to my earlier question. Do you think that with a better QB, Pittman's yards/catch would be notably better? He was 12.6 yards/catch as a rookie. Just swap Minshew for Prescott, you don't think Pittman is closer to 13?

I don't understand how you say you don't get the QB argument, and then list three QBs who weren't very good with the Colts. Wentz was the best of the three, and there's a notable difference between Pittman's YPC in 2021 and his YPC in 2023. If we had Dak Prescott instead of Gardner Minshew, you don't think Pittman's YPC would be notably higher? Do you think that Garrett Wilson would have had more than 11 yards/catch if Aaron Rodgers was healthy? I don't think Pittman will ever be a 1,500 yard, 16 yards/catch receiver, and he's definitely not the prototype that comes to mind when talking about true #1 WRs. But I think it's a mistake to hold his career yards/catch stat over his head without acknowledging that he's played with bad/inefficient QBs for most of his career. Yet, you seem to want to reduce his entire career down to that one stat.

I'd add that it starts with good ownership. Some owners just can't get out of their own way, hire the wrong people, fire the wrong people, play favorites, dominate the process, etc. With good ownership, your GM and HC can thrive, and the football people can find and develop good players. With bad ownership, you get Washington, Jax, etc.

Agreed.

He had good production, and his talent was obvious. But from the ground up, he was awkward and fundamentally flawed as a passer. He got better in some areas, but he still has some of the same issues with fundamentals. CJ Stroud is much more fundamentally sound, more disciplined, better from the pocket, he's a quicker decision maker, I think he's more accurate to all levels of the field, and his arm is almost as good. He's not as athletic and fast, and he probably can't make crazy throws 50 yards downfield while he's scrambling the way Watson could, but we just saw him make a pretty good throw on the run against us. I'd agree that Stroud is a better passer, all things considered. He's already displaying a mastery of some of the things that Watson never improved on.

Even good QBs go through stretches where they turn the ball over at a high rate. I think it was after the Browns game, someone asked what should we do if Minshew keeps turning the ball over multiple times per game, and my response was 'grin and bear it.' And that was because it was easily his most productive game of the season to that point, and against a good defense. (Look at some of the Browns defensive splits, they were MUCH better at home than on the road this year.) My point is I think we can find a way to work around and eventually mitigate the turnovers. But if you can't move the ball at all, there's probably no fix for that. Watch the Jets try to move the ball with Zach Wilson, it's horrendous. I'd rather have 450 yards of offense and four turnovers, than 170 yards of offense and six points. You have to have some production at some point.