Colts hire Chris Ballard as GM [Merge]

[Knuckles79]

Does anyone know when the presser is?

[Superman]

10 hours ago, dgambill said:

Neil's son??? Only reason I could understand listening to his podcast would be to catch a few of his fathers tunes lol.

Supes I think you should just save your breath. Getting anyone but a select few to believe that Ryan wasn't a total unqualified * that screwed up our roster and was a total waste is basically impossible. I mean people here would believe he never had a single decent signing and the only good draft picks were handed to him. 

You ever heard the verse not to cast your pearls to the swine...well something tells me your wisdom is often wasted on this site lol. 

There are some of us that knows that Grigson was a mixed bag but he was abrassive and didn't manage relationships inside the building well and that wouldn't matter if we were winning but when we weren't that put a microscope on his mistakes...then add yet another surgery for Luck and I think that was the straw that broke the camels back. The cupboard wasn't left totally bare and the cap is in good shape...I appreciate his effort but I hope now we have a guy that can finish the job of building the monster Chuck invisioned...now can Chuck do anything with it will be the question.

 

As always, thanks for the kind words.

 

But I don't think simple acknowledgment of fact qualifies as wisdom. I'm swinging back because I don't understand why we're trying to change the past here. Grigson wasn't some unqualified * that no one had ever heard of. He was a respected personnel man with a solid resume. He turned out to not be a good GM, that doesn't mean that Irsay's hiring process was flawed, and it certainly doesn't mean that it was a crazy hire.

 

And yes, I agree, Grigson is being demonized because he's an easy target, and because he didn't really have any redeeming qualities (bad draft picks, bad free agent signings, bad attitude). But I don't like revisionist history. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, TheGreatManning18Fan said:

Does anyone know when the presser is?

 

4:15 eastern

[Superman]

1 hour ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

There was a reason he wasnt drafted because EVERY GM KNEW IT WAS A WASTED PICK. 

 

Actually, it's because every GM got played. His agents said after the draft that they were bluffing, that he would have signed with whoever drafted him.

 

Still, they must have been very convincing for all 32 teams to pass on him for 256 picks over three days. It's easy as a fan to say what you would have done, but none of us had the information the actual decision makers had. There had to be something there to make everyone pass on him. I think it's unreasonable to hold that over anyone's head.

[Jdubu]

18 hours ago, mahagga73 said:

Got to wonder what would qualify as a job saving season for Pagano. I'm not sure they can fill all these holes on defense in one offseason. I'm not even overly optimistic they will do much better than 8-8, maybe 10-6 if everything comes together. 

Imo, for Chuck to secure his job, he has to show he can game plan to the opponent and adjust the game plan while playing the game. He can't have a slow start in games. He can't have an 0-2 start. He can't have his team play down to teams like the Jags or the Browns etc... He can't have a team that appears undisciplined like what we saw this past season. 

 

Id like to think the level of the bar is set at minimum to win this division. The second bar should be that if you are going to lose games, they better be because you played a better opponent and not that your game plan was outmatched. With the currently constructed roster, I'm not sure it's completely fair to tie his job solely on winning a playoff game but if we spend freely in FA market, that suggestion may be put on the list to make it to at least _________ round. 

 

We shall see. I'm just not a fan of Pagano from what I've seen but I also know nothing about Ballards choice either. 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Actually, it's because every GM got played. His agents said after the draft that they were bluffing, that he would have signed with whoever drafted him.

 

Still, they must have been very convincing for all 32 teams to pass on him for 256 picks over three days. It's easy as a fan to say what you would have done, but none of us had the information the actual decision makers had. There had to be something there to make everyone pass on him. I think it's unreasonable to hold that over anyone's head.

 

I think it just became an untold rule amongst the 32 teams that they would all pass on him. If he was cleared, it wouldn't be fair for him to be selected in round 7. And when would it be okay to take a chance on him? Round 4, 5, 6 or 7?

 

Things were handed probably. Once he got cleared, all teams had an equal chance to sign him.

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

Yah but you cant really fault him for missing what EVERY other gm missed on. Do you think the patriots forums are chastising BB about not drafting collins?? 

Because BB has like 20 superbowls now......

[csmopar]

18 minutes ago, TheGreatManning18Fan said:

Does anyone know when the presser is?

was just about to ask the same thing.

[Knuckles79]

2 minutes ago, csmopar said:

was just about to ask the same thing.

Superman said 4:15 eastern time

[Mr. Irrelevant]

OK, who of you guys started this Twitter handle?! 

 

 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, Mr Clueless said:

 

I think it just became an untold rule amongst the 32 teams that they would all pass on him. If he was cleared, it wouldn't be fair for him to be selected in round 7. And when would it be okay to take a chance on him? Round 4, 5, 6 or 7?

 

Things were handed probably. Once he got cleared, all teams had an equal chance to sign him.

 

I don't believe that at all. NFL teams do whatever they can to gain an advantage on other teams, some within the rules, some outside of the rules. I don't believe that all 32 teams had an unspoken rule that they'd all pass on Collins so that everyone would have an equal shot at him after the draft. Every team had a shot at him during the draft -- multiple shots, actually.

 

And there are certain teams -- like the Patriots -- that openly eschew "unspoken rules." Go back to the Jake Ballard waiver claim. The Pats wouldn't have passed on this guy if they were certain that a) he wasn't involved in the girl's death, and b) that he would sign without holding out.

 

This was not long after Aaron Hernandez and Ray Rice, and there was a bunch of noise around the league and their handling of players with legal issues. Everyone was walking eggshells. 

[csmopar]

5 minutes ago, Mr Clueless said:

OK, who of you guys started this Twitter handle?! 

 

Dustin....

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Just now, csmopar said:

Dustin....

Out of likes, so good call! 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't believe that at all. NFL teams do whatever they can to gain an advantage on other teams, some within the rules, some outside of the rules. I don't believe that all 32 teams had an unspoken rule that they'd all pass on Collins so that everyone would have an equal shot at him after the draft. Every team had a shot at him during the draft -- multiple shots, actually.

 

And there are certain teams -- like the Patriots -- that openly eschew "unspoken rules." Go back to the Jake Ballard waiver claim. The Pats wouldn't have passed on this guy if they were certain that a) he wasn't involved in the girl's death, and b) that he would sign without holding out.

 

This was not long after Aaron Hernandez and Ray Rice, and there was a bunch of noise around the league and their handling of players with legal issues. Everyone was walking eggshells. 

Maybe. It just doesn't make sense not to take a chance on him on a 7 round pick. Surely it could be a wasted pick, but the reward if he was cleared.....

[csmopar]

7 minutes ago, Mr Clueless said:

Out of likes, so good call! 

it was that or "YournextGM"  we both know they'd love to be GM

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Mr Clueless said:

Maybe. It just doesn't make sense not to take a chance on him on a 7 round pick. Surely it could be a wasted pick, but the reward if he was cleared.....

 

All 32 teams passed on him. There must have been convincing evidence that he was going to hold out, just like he said he would.

[Cynjin]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

All 32 teams passed on him. There must have been convincing evidence that he was going to hold out, just like he said he would.

 

 I would like to see what that convincing evidence is. There is little reason to believe that he would've held out for a full year, he could not reenter the draft. Sitting out for year would've ended up costing him a lot of money in the end.   I believe he still would have ended up having to sign a Udfa contract, which is limited. 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

All 32 teams passed on him. There must have been convincing evidence that he was going to hold out, just like he said he would.

Would you be allowed to draft him in round 7 and then give him a substantial better contract later if he was cleared? In that case I would give his agent a call and tell him that would be what was about to happen. Just being creative here.

[SteelCityColt]

19 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

In related news, Chris Ballard has decided to sign Vick Ballard to solidify the RB position and Jake Ballard to solidify the TE position

 

 

Sounds like there's a song in that...

[csmopar]

15 minutes ago, Mr Clueless said:

Would you be allowed to draft him in round 7 and then give him a substantial better contract later if he was cleared? In that case I would give his agent a call and tell him that would be what was about to happen. Just being creative here.

Under the new CBA, no I don't think so.  this was brought up once before, I think they have to play at least 1 year on the rookie scale before a new contract but I could be and probably am wrong

[Buck Showalter]

9 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

Sounds like there's a song in that...

The Ballad of the Ballards...

[Superman]

24 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

 I would like to see what that convincing evidence is. There is little reason to believe that he would've held out for a full year, he could not reenter the draft. Sitting out for year would've ended up costing him a lot of money in the end.   I believe he still would have ended up having to sign a Udfa contract, which is limited. 

 

He could have re-entered the draft, and that was the threat from his agents. He was not eligible for the supplemental draft.

 

This is a great read on how it all played out over the course of the draft: http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/15/lael-collins-nfl-draft-dallas-cowboys-murder-investigation

 

Excerpts:

Quote

 

Meanwhile, the agents had set up a 4 p.m. CT conference call—three hours before the draft is set to begin—to connect representatives from NFL teams with Collins’ attorney in Baton Rouge. Twenty teams are on the line (two general managers and a bunch of security heads) and ask dozens of questions. Some approach the matter with blank slates, while others seem to bring assumptions of criminality. The secure call is tightly managed, with coded entry numbers for each participant.

Collins isn’t among the 32 players selected on the first day of the draft.

One team rep tells McCartney they’re considering drafting Collins in the fifth round.

“I’m thinking, That’s the worst thing for us,” McCartney says. “I ran the numbers. If a guy is drafted, he signs a four-year deal. If he gets a three-year undrafted-free-agent contract, plays well and often, then gets the first-round tender and the player participation pool bonus money, he could be paid better than the 33rd pick in the draft.”

Collins, of course, would have to stay healthy for the earnings to kick in during Year 4 as a UDFA, but he would likely have his pick of where he’d play and optimize his chances of contributing early in his career.

In Baton Rouge, Collins sweats out the second day of the draft while his agents unfurl a new plan. Rather than lobby for him to be drafted, they issue an ultimatum to teams: Draft La’el in the second or third rounds, or don’t draft him at all.

The hardest part, Gilmore says, was selling Collins on the idea: “I’m explaining it to this young man and he’s having a hard time accepting it. We’re trying not to get drafted? He had to have a lot of trust in us.”

They show him salary charts and he agrees; it’s worth the risk.

The media, including this reporter, openly question the competence of Collins’ agents. Even a rival agent reaches out to La’el in an apparent attempt to poach him from his seemingly befuddled representatives.

Some teams express contempt for Collins’ bold move. Others call his agents to gauge their position. Are they bluffing? Six teams tell the agency they’re going to draft him on Saturday, the third day of the draft. “If you draft him, he’s going into next year’s draft,” McCartney tells them.

Was it a bluff?

“We can put it on the record now: We were never going back in the draft,” Smith says of waiting for the 2016 draft. “If someone had drafted him, we would’ve had a long, long discussion about it, but at the end of the day you can’t go back in the draft. He could get injured, gain weight, or 10 great tackles could come out. Too many risks.”

After three rounds, Collins remains undrafted.

Before making its seventh-round selection, one team sends Smith one last text message.

“There was a team that had drafted four offensive linemen,” Smith says, “and they said, ‘We’re taking him.’ And I texted back, ‘You’re going to embarrass yourself. You’re going to waste this pick.’

“And they passed. And now he’s a UDFA.”

 

 

He didn't sign with the Cowboys until the Thursday after the draft. Over a week passed from the time the story came out to the time he signed, enough time for the police to interview and investigate, enough time for teams to gather information, and enough time for a paternity test to show he was not the father of the baby. 

 

It's easy to look back two years later and criticize the teams that passed on him, but it's really unfair. No one was sure how it was going to play out, and Collins agents actively and aggresively worked to make sure he wasn't drafted past the third round. The NFL had recently dealt with a handful of really bad legal situations involving some high profile players -- Hernandez, Rice, Peterson, Hardy, etc. -- and everyone was spooked by the prospect of being the team that took a chance on the player who might have been even remotely connected to the double homicide of a pregnant woman and her baby. They all considered the situation while it was developing, and they all ultimately decided not to draft him.

[Superman]

52 minutes ago, Mr Clueless said:

Would you be allowed to draft him in round 7 and then give him a substantial better contract later if he was cleared? In that case I would give his agent a call and tell him that would be what was about to happen. Just being creative here.

 

Nope, all rookie contracts are pre-determined, aside from guarantee language. 

[Superman]

36 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Under the new CBA, no I don't think so.  this was brought up once before, I think they have to play at least 1 year on the rookie scale before a new contract but I could be and probably am wrong

 

Actually have to play three years on your rookie contract before you can get an extension, if you're drafted. If you're undrafted, it's only two years. Between that and the performance bonuses for undrafted players, his agents felt he could make more money, sooner, if he went undrafted.

[OffensivelyPC]

1 hour ago, Mr Clueless said:

OK, who of you guys started this Twitter handle?! 

 

 

I just read the tweet without reading the handle and I was like, whaaaa?  Then I realized my mistake and thought:

 

[OffensivelyPC]

2 hours ago, Myles said:

Then shouldn't you have voted that way?

I know the HC is part of it, but Pagano or not, I think we can all see how void of talent this team is.  

You are really disappointed in that lone 1 vote, are you? lol

 

I just tend to view it as splitting the baby in half in some respects and without certain pieces of information available, it's hard to judge this hire - particularly when he hasn't done anything yet.  How about this, I'm excited to enter a new chapter for the Colts and hopeful that Ballard could be a piece that we won't regret moving forward.

 

 

[jameszeigler834]

21 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

I agree.  I've been very vocally critical of Irsay, but I think he's made some necessary (and unexpected) changes which are good for the future of the team.  I don't agree with keeping Pagano for another year, especially since it'll likely mean another year of not winning games we should, but I think the arrow is pointing up

I like the hiring of Ballard as GM but I hate the fact that Pagano is staying means another year of him making excuses.

[Jason_]

1 hour ago, jameszeigler834 said:

I like the hiring of Ballard as GM but I hate the fact that Pagano is staying means another year of him making excuses.

 

what did pagano make excuses about?

[21isSuperman]

1 minute ago, Jason_S said:

 

what did pagano make excuses about?

Not necessarily excuses, but we'll hear the same old cliches about a team that has the same problems it usually has.  "We gotta chop wood, gotta put the blinders on, we'll fix it and get it right", then another dud performance against a team we should easily beat.

[VocableLoki]

4 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

Not necessarily excuses, but we'll hear the same old cliches about a team that has the same problems it usually has.  "We gotta chop wood, gotta put the blinders on, we'll fix it and get it right", then another dud performance against a team we should easily beat.

Don't most coaches pull out cliches? The whole idea is to be purposely vague right?

[21isSuperman]

Just now, VocableLoki said:

Don't most coaches pull out cliches? The whole idea is to be purposely vague right?

Cliches are fine if things change behind the scenes and the team improves (eg. we're on to Cincinnati).  But for Pagano, we get the same cliches and the same sub-par performances.

[VocableLoki]

Just now, 21isSuperman said:

Cliches are fine if things change behind the scenes and the team improves (eg. we're on to Cincinnati).  But for Pagano, we get the same cliches and the same sub-par performances.

Eh, inconsistent performances I would agree with. I don't see a problem with the cliche thing either way. I don't think it's better to brutally dissect your team in a presser.

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

Cliches are fine if things change behind the scenes and the team improves (eg. we're on to Cincinnati).  But for Pagano, we get the same cliches and the same sub-par performances.

 

I blame the people asking the questions. I think they're awful at it. Good questions would draw Pagano out better, and in fact, when they ask better questions he actually gives substantive responses. 

[jameszeigler834]

1 hour ago, Jason_S said:

 

what did pagano make excuses about?

This team has become an excuses machine since he has been here.

[Jason_]

1 hour ago, jameszeigler834 said:

This team has become an excuses machine since he has been here.

 

How so?

[jameszeigler834]

1 hour ago, Jason_S said:

 

How so?

Look at what phrase he used to describe this past season and the year before as to how they both unfolded things just didn't fall our way I disagree with that to me that's an excuse as to how bad this team is and how terrible he is.

[jameszeigler834]

As for Chris Ballard the only thing I disagreed with is when he said Pagano is a great football coach.

[21isSuperman]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I blame the people asking the questions. I think they're awful at it. Good questions would draw Pagano out better, and in fact, when they ask better questions he actually gives substantive responses. 

This is very true.  Belichick is known for his supremely boring and cliched press conferences, but if you ask him a real question, he answers it with a good response.

[ThatOneColtFan]

On 1/29/2017 at 9:20 PM, ColtJ82 said:

It has been mentioned, but it would be near impossible for the new coach to properly install an offense with Luck's surgery. He will miss a very healthy portion of the offseason. Could have saved Chuck's job for a year. 

 

Wow, the timing was pretty crazy then!

[ColtsBlueFL]

17 hours ago, csmopar said:

it was a rumored threat.  Chances are Collins would have played regardless of taken in the 7th or not.  Honestly, i'd been fine with the swing. 

 

17 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

The difference is, Collins had his pick of the litter, which is exactly how the situation went down.  Good would have had a choice as well, but the chances are that his options would have been much more limited.  Every team knew Collins draft projections absent the murder investigation.  

 

The fact that no team drafted him speaks volumes, but nevertheless, I still would've taken him.  So I don't really hold it against Grigson, I just disagreed with it for several reasons.

 

This seems to be the difference between 'fans' that have no skin in the game, and the GM's where their choices are paramount to their club and their own tenure.  GM's value 7th round picks like potential gold lotto tickets and often they designate special  staff to aggressively negotiate UDFA's hoping to find that Gem (like Antonio Gates, Jeff Saturday, etc...)

 

I'd venture a majority of 'us fans' would swing for the fences at that high fastball in case we connect. For the .  GM's of the league, they all let it go hoping the next pitch (their chosen player) was easier to make contact with, and the possibilities