Colts / KC roster building comparisons

[ztboiler]

For obvious reasons, I drove down some internet side streets and had a lot of fun this afternoon looking at the journeys of the Colts and Chiefs since 2013 and their roster building efforts....

 

Though Ballard didn't arrive until after the draft in 2013, that's still a good place to start your journey if you take it.

 

As for conclusions, there are several ways to go in the analysis...and I'm curious what others see.  Clearly KC has drafted more players still on the roster and filling roles. 

 

However, if you look at their core playmakers, particularly on D, they were acquired prior to 2013.  

 

So, the question on my mind is...are they really drafting that much better than the Colts or are they drafting to and defining their systems better with a better inherited core?

[ColtsFanMikeC]

The Chief's defense has sustained or improved since Ballard got there, in a division with a lot more offensive firepower than the AFC South.

 

He may have inherited a good team, especially defense, when arriving in KC and at least it hasn't gotten worse during his tenure.  Key play-makers were retained and others added. 

 

The Colts on the other hand seem to have regressed on defense under Grigson, or at least haven't gotten any better. 

 

Grigson inherited a pretty crappy defense, especially considering the scheme would be changing pretty much entirely.  That said, he hasn't done much to improve it to date or build it into a long-term defense.  Vontae was a great move, and I like the additions of Geathers, Anderson, and some others but basically the only FAs who have been worth anything are old, 'stop gap' type of guys (e.g., DQwell, Adams, and even Langford and Walden are on the wrong side of 30).

 

In all, Grigson inherited a worse team (by far) than what Ballard was dealt in KC.  However, when Grigson came on we had several glaring holes, IMO, in this order: 1) QB, 2)O-line, 3) Defense as a whole -- 5 years later, Grigs fixed one of those problems because he got Luck w/ a #1 overall pick.  Hopefully the o-line comes around this coming year with the young guys having another offseason and having gained valuable playing experience, and I think the D has some promising pieces, but also some glaring holes.

 

I did my best to give Grigson the benefit of the doubt for 3-4 years, knowing he inherited a large pile of garbage -- but at this point, I think it'd be hard to find anyone who is much worse than Grigson.

[Andrew Luck fan club]

Ballard said himself he thinks the trenches and defense are what's important. So I have faith. 

[Finball]

Chiefs first picks in the last 3 drafts. ;

Dee Ford

Marcus Peters

Chris Jones

 

That's 10 sack guy from last year,, 2 time Pro Bowler (and 1st team All Pro this past season) and arguably the best interior lineman of the '16 draft so far (counting Bosa as an edge player). Says a lot to me that Ford is clearly the worst player of that group.

 

Chris Jones was actually a 2nd rounder too, they traded down last year out of the 1st round. The only other 2nd rounder they've had in past 3 years is Mitch Morse, their starting center who I'd personally rank as an above average center.

 

They've found depth in the later rounds, like both of their starting Gs, depth CBs, LBs, pro bowl special teamers, Tyreek Hill etc..

 

They've found some solid players in Spence Ware, Cairos Santos, Albert Wilson, Jaye Howard and Daniel Sorensen as basically street FAs/waiver pickups/UDFAs.

 

Spend some money in FA and got Jeremy Maclin (played under Reid in Philly), Mitchell Schwartz in UFA.

 

Reid and Dorsey have probably had more say than Ballard in Chiefs roster decisions but what we know about the Chiefs is that they've tried and have found solid players in almost every possible way; and they've avoided big mistakes. Though Maclin contract isn't particulalry pretty right now, but wouldn't classify that as a bad signing either. Filled a big need for them. Same with Houston if injuries have gotten the better of him.

 

Also interesting (not sating wrong) decision to retain both Derrick Johnson and Tamba Hali last year, both veterans in their 30s to pretty big money, while being pretty tight witht he cap. Johnson made sense to keep as after he went down this past season, their linebackers were abused in coverage. With Hali, maybe they weren't sold on Ford? He did have relatively slow start to his career. And IIRC, it was known/speculated at the time (so probably known for the Chiefs) that Justin Houston wouldn't be able to start the season in time.

 

I guess the Chiefs draft mostly BPA, but I find it very convenient that after they lost their starting center to Oakland (Rodney Hudson) they drafted a replacement in the 2nd round that very year.

[Narcosys]

1 minute ago, Majin Vegeta said:

Ballard said himself he thinks the trenches and defense are what's important. So I have faith. 

You could get a better Majin pic of Vegeta. Lol

[Andrew Luck fan club]

2 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

You could get a better Majin pic of Vegeta. Lol

The cool ones are too big, they won't load 

[Finball]

Also Chiefs spent 64M on offense last year, 67M on defense; pretty balanced though relative to the rest of the league, they were slightly above average on spending when it came to defense and below average when it came to offense.

 

They also let Sean Smith walk to Oakland; or just couldnt match that deal. Thus they had pretty inexperienced and cheap corners as they didn't get replacements in UFA. They used a 3rd rounder on a corner, Keivarae Russell but he was cut at the preseason or something and picked up by the Chiefs. Looks like their biggest mistake of the past 3 seasons. They spent about 5M on their corners last year; 4th least in the league. They played better than that but guys after Peters didn't seem to do too well. They spent quite a bit on their safeties, though, 4th most in the league. Ron Parker, the safety alongside Berry, was a waiver pickup from the Seahawks.

 

EDIT. and so was Jaye Howard, waiver pickup from the Seahawks. Spencer Ware was signed to future contract,late 2014 after being waiver earlier in the year by the Seahawks... not sure if that's a coincidence or not. Probably pretty rare to have 3 starters (more or less, J.Howard doesn't play much on passing downs, good run stuffer) as waiver pickups, much less have those waiver pickups come from the same team.

 

Chiefs spend just about 15M on their oline last year; 4th least in the league too. And much of that to their FA acquisition RT, Mitch Schwartz. Relied on younger players instead,

[LJpalmbeacher2]

2 hours ago, Majin Vegeta said:

Ballard said himself he thinks the trenches and defense are what's important. So I have faith. 

griggs & pags said similar when they arrived in indy.

[Andrew Luck fan club]

37 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher said:

griggs & pags said similar when they arrived in indy.

[jameszeigler834]

3 hours ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

The Chief's defense has sustained or improved since Ballard got there, in a division with a lot more offensive firepower than the AFC South.

 

He may have inherited a good team, especially defense, when arriving in KC and at least it hasn't gotten worse during his tenure.  Key play-makers were retained and others added. 

 

The Colts on the other hand seem to have regressed on defense under Grigson, or at least haven't gotten any better. 

 

Grigson inherited a pretty crappy defense, especially considering the scheme would be changing pretty much entirely.  That said, he hasn't done much to improve it to date or build it into a long-term defense.  Vontae was a great move, and I like the additions of Geathers, Anderson, and some others but basically the only FAs who have been worth anything are old, 'stop gap' type of guys (e.g., DQwell, Adams, and even Langford and Walden are on the wrong side of 30).

 

In all, Grigson inherited a worse team (by far) than what Ballard was dealt in KC.  However, when Grigson came on we had several glaring holes, IMO, in this order: 1) QB, 2)O-line, 3) Defense as a whole -- 5 years later, Grigs fixed one of those problems because he got Luck w/ a #1 overall pick.  Hopefully the o-line comes around this coming year with the young guys having another offseason and having gained valuable playing experience, and I think the D has some promising pieces, but also some glaring holes.

 

I did my best to give Grigson the benefit of the doubt for 3-4 years, knowing he inherited a large pile of garbage -- but at this point, I think it'd be hard to find anyone who is much worse than Grigson.

They were not that great when he got there they just continue getting better so ya I think this guy can help us couldn't do any worst than Ryan Grigson.

[Jdubu]

3 hours ago, Majin Vegeta said:

Ballard said himself he thinks the trenches and defense are what's important. So I have faith. 

Yeah, and we were going to build a monster, we had a rolling ball of butcher knives etc... words are hollow, actions matter. If only Grigson and his awful ego didn't take over his ability to scout, it appeared he finally had some great picks on the draft and perhaps turned his learning curve but his toxic attitude destroyed him. 

[Andrew Luck fan club]

Just now, Jdubu said:

Yeah, and we were going to build a monster, we had a rolling ball of butcher knives etc... words are hollow, actions matter. If only Grigson and his awful ego didn't take over his ability to scout, it appeared he finally had some great picks on the draft and perhaps turned his learning curve but his toxic attitude destroyed him. 

Well he had strong trenches and a good defense so they weren't hollow words. 

[Jdubu]

Was this guy responsible for either drafting or otherwise acquiring these trench guys or were they here when he got here? What did he specifically add to these lines? What was his level of involvement in those decisions? I honestly don't know anything about the guy but didn't his bio say he was a scout or director of scouts for the bears? If I'm getting the guy recalled right and he was the bears guy, that scares the bejesus out of me. Also, what level of cap accountability did this guy have? Does anyone even honestly know these answers? 

[Andrew Luck fan club]

4 minutes ago, Jdubu said:

Was this guy responsible for either drafting or otherwise acquiring these trench guys or were they here when he got here? What did he specifically add to these lines? What was his level of involvement in those decisions? I honestly don't know anything about the guy but didn't his bio say he was a scout or director of scouts for the bears? If I'm getting the guy recalled right and he was the bears guy, that scares the bejesus out of me. Also, what level of cap accountability did this guy have? Does anyone even honestly know these answers? 

There's huge threads about all of that. With all the info.

[Jdubu]

13 hours ago, Majin Vegeta said:

There's huge threads about all of that. With all the info.

There may in fact be but trying to locate it through all the threads is time consuming. Perhaps you know exactly where it's located at and can point that specific thread at. When changing GM's, many want to know exactly how much input a right hand staffer actually had on its current roster. 

[Superman]

18 hours ago, Finball said:

Chiefs spend just about 15M on their oline last year; 4th least in the league too. And much of that to their FA acquisition RT, Mitch Schwartz. Relied on younger players instead,

 

That's cap dollars. They actually spent a lot more than that, mostly for extending Fisher.

They're up against the cap pretty tightly, with only about $4m to work with as of right now. They can and probably will cut Nick Foles, for $10m. They can cut Derrick Johnson for $4m. They can restructure Alex Smith and Justin Houston and add about $15m. They could restructure Maclin, but I wouldn't, just in case he's a cap casualty in 2018.

 

With those moves, I have them with about $30m in cap space. They need at least $10m for draft picks and operating budget; probably more like $15m (OTC has their rookie pool at $7m in 2017). Tagging either Poe or Berry is going to cost them about $13m. Then they have Josh Mauga, Cairo Santos, Albert Wilson, etc., as free agents. Gonna be a tough offseason for them.

 

I think they'll try vigorously to re-sign Poe and Berry, but they'll have to go with big signing bonuses and borrow from future years, which isn't ideal. Using the tag is a last resort, but if they have to do that, I don't think they can keep both. I could see Maclin being cut this year, if it comes down to it. Then you can tag Poe and re-sign Berry, then have more breathing room in 2018 to accommodate Poe's new deal.

[chad72]

Marcus Peters is the most intriguing draft pick he has been a part of. 

 

Here is an excerpt from arrowheadaddict article:

 

http://arrowheadaddict.com/2016/01/10/chris-ballard-chiefs-valuable-free-agent/

 

Key paragraph:

 

For those who don’t know who Ballard is, fans both avid and passive alike have seen his impact on the roster. Ballard was instrumental in the Chiefs opting for the much-maligned cornerback Marcus Peters in the NFL Draft, personally spending time with Peters and his family in Oakland, calming the concerns of management and  assuring the organization that Peters would be a good solider, both on and off the field.

 

Thus far, Peters has been everything you could hope on the field and certainly no apparent issues off the field. Both head coach Andy Reid and general manager John Dorsey are both quick to point out the time Ballard spent with the Peters family as one of the important pieces of information that aided the organization in being confident and comfortable with the Peters pick.

 

Prior to this 2015 season, Ballard carried the title of Director of Player Personnel, and was instrumental in the organization’s efforts to find value pickups in free agency, helping the franchise be competitive immediately after the Scott Pioli era crashed and burned in spectacular fashion.

 

It also shows me he won't shy away from troubled reputations and will do his legwork before writing that college player off the draft board.

[Finball]

I'd assume Charles is also cut. Barely played the last two seasons, is owed over 6M and releasing him clears all of that.

[Smonroe]

58 minutes ago, Finball said:

I'd assume Charles is also cut. Barely played the last two seasons, is owed over 6M and releasing him clears all of that.

 

No doubt.  I read he's owed $7M this year.  Someone will sign him as a FA, probably for a one year incentive deal.  TBH, if it's us, I wouldn't mind it.

[Colts_Fan12]

8 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

No doubt.  I read he's owed $7M this year.  Someone will sign him as a FA, probably for a one year incentive deal.  TBH, if it's us, I wouldn't mind it.

You would like cripple Charles?

[Finball]

I wouldn't mind it either on an incentive laden deal.

 

Low risk, medium reward.

[Smonroe]

19 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

You would like cripple Charles?

 

That's very unPC of you.

 

Finball said it best in the post under yours.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

21 hours ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

The Chief's defense has sustained or improved since Ballard got there, in a division with a lot more offensive firepower than the AFC South.

 

He may have inherited a good team, especially defense, when arriving in KC and at least it hasn't gotten worse during his tenure.  Key play-makers were retained and others added. 

 

The Colts on the other hand seem to have regressed on defense under Grigson, or at least haven't gotten any better. 

 

Grigson inherited a pretty crappy defense, especially considering the scheme would be changing pretty much entirely.  That said, he hasn't done much to improve it to date or build it into a long-term defense.  Vontae was a great move, and I like the additions of Geathers, Anderson, and some others but basically the only FAs who have been worth anything are old, 'stop gap' type of guys (e.g., DQwell, Adams, and even Langford and Walden are on the wrong side of 30).

 

In all, Grigson inherited a worse team (by far) than what Ballard was dealt in KC.  However, when Grigson came on we had several glaring holes, IMO, in this order: 1) QB, 2)O-line, 3) Defense as a whole -- 5 years later, Grigs fixed one of those problems because he got Luck w/ a #1 overall pick.  Hopefully the o-line comes around this coming year with the young guys having another offseason and having gained valuable playing experience, and I think the D has some promising pieces, but also some glaring holes.

 

I did my best to give Grigson the benefit of the doubt for 3-4 years, knowing he inherited a large pile of garbage -- but at this point, I think it'd be hard to find anyone who is much worse than Grigson.

Luck wasn't that hard of a pick really. We all could have made that one!!

[Colts_Fan12]

7 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

That's very unPC of you.

 

Finball said it best in the post under yours.

Idc if it's incentive based or not healthy players come here and get hurt I'll be damned if I'm gonna want someone who has always been injured here. I also never claimed to be PC

[Smonroe]

4 minutes ago, Horse Shoe Heaven said:

Luck wasn't that hard of a pick really. We all could have made that one!!

 

Agreed.  Now it seems obvious, and it was to plenty of us in 12.  But there were a lot of people on the fence between him and the Heisman Trophy winner (and RotY in 12).

 

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

4 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Agreed.  Now it seems obvious, and it was to plenty of us in 12.  But there were a lot of people on the fence between him and the Heisman Trophy winner (and RotY in 12).

 

True Luck it seems was our guy, I think Irsay saw the NEXT PEYTON in Luck! interesting if say the Colts picked 2nd instead of first, we all propabley would have been cool picking RG3!! Hummm

[BlueShoe]

13 hours ago, Superman said:

 

That's cap dollars. They actually spent a lot more than that, mostly for extending Fisher.

They're up against the cap pretty tightly, with only about $4m to work with as of right now. They can and probably will cut Nick Foles, for $10m. They can cut Derrick Johnson for $4m. They can restructure Alex Smith and Justin Houston and add about $15m. They could restructure Maclin, but I wouldn't, just in case he's a cap casualty in 2018.

 

With those moves, I have them with about $30m in cap space. They need at least $10m for draft picks and operating budget; probably more like $15m (OTC has their rookie pool at $7m in 2017). Tagging either Poe or Berry is going to cost them about $13m. Then they have Josh Mauga, Cairo Santos, Albert Wilson, etc., as free agents. Gonna be a tough offseason for them.

 

I think they'll try vigorously to re-sign Poe and Berry, but they'll have to go with big signing bonuses and borrow from future years, which isn't ideal. Using the tag is a last resort, but if they have to do that, I don't think they can keep both. I could see Maclin being cut this year, if it comes down to it. Then you can tag Poe and re-sign Berry, then have more breathing room in 2018 to accommodate Poe's new deal.

 

Sounds like they have too much talent. That's a good problem to have. Our Colts, under Polian had years like this. Although he sometimes overpaid and kept the wrong personnel. 

 

Realistically, we shouldn't be in a situation where we have so much money to spend.

[Superman]

8 hours ago, BlueShoe said:

 

Sounds like they have too much talent. That's a good problem to have. Our Colts, under Polian had years like this. Although he sometimes overpaid and kept the wrong personnel. 

 

Realistically, we shouldn't be in a situation where we have so much money to spend.

 

No, we shouldn't. If Richardson worked out, and if Werner, Thornton and Holmes were good, we'd have more contracts committed to young players, and less cap space (obviously). 

[RockThatBlue]

On 1/29/2017 at 10:22 PM, jameszeigler834 said:

They were not that great when he got there they just continue getting better so ya I think this guy can help us couldn't do any worst than Ryan Grigson.

He could do worse than Grigson. That said, I think Ballard will be better

 

[jameszeigler834]

1 minute ago, RockThatBlue said:

He could do worse than Grigson. That said, I think Ballard will be better

 

Grigson is and was the worst GM of this century this guy seems to care about putting this team in the best possible position for success I didn't see at with Grigson.

[Finball]

19 minutes ago, jameszeigler834 said:

Grigson is and was the worst GM of this century this guy seems to care about putting this team in the best possible position for success I didn't see at with Grigson.

 

Gene Smith, Matt Millen, John Izdik..

[Mjølner]

On 30/01/2017 at 8:21 PM, chad72 said:

It also shows me he won't shy away from troubled reputations and will do his legwork before writing that college player off the draft board.

 

Agreed. Same goes for Tyreek Hill

[Andrew Luck fan club]

5 hours ago, RockThatBlue said:

He could do worse than Grigson. That said, I think Ballard will be better

 

I agree. I hated Grigs at the end but he made some good picks. But I'm damn excited to see Ballard now. I loved the Upclose studios interview he did today. 

I think he has the right vision and skill to build a solid team. 

[Defjamz26]

17 hours ago, Finball said:

 

Gene Smith, Matt Millen, John Izdik..

He's almost as bad as Millen. Millen kept drafting WRs in the first round and it really cost him, but he got 1 right with Calvin Johnson. But equally as bad is having the best QB prospect with in the last 15 years and letting him get absolutely hammered for 5 years to the point that he had a shoulder issue for two seasons. It's really pick your poison tbh. But I do believe Colts fans need to stop trying to protect their reputation by believing he wasn't that bad. All he has to show for 5 drafts is a WR and an OG.

[Finball]

30 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

He's almost as bad as Millen. Millen kept drafting WRs in the first round and it really cost him, but he got 1 right with Calvin Johnson. But equally as bad is having the best QB prospect with in the last 15 years and letting him get absolutely hammered for 5 years to the point that he had a shoulder issue for two seasons. It's really pick your poison tbh. But I do believe Colts fans need to stop trying to protect their reputation by believing he wasn't that bad. All he has to show for 5 drafts is a WR and an OG.

 

I believe Grigson was bad and I wanted him canned a long time ago. I just don't have him as the worst GM of the century.

 

I don't really give credit for Millen drafting Megatron. It was a no-brainer. Same with Colts drafting Luck.

[Defjamz26]

1 minute ago, Finball said:

 

I believe Grigson was bad and I wanted him canned a long time ago. I just don't have him as the worst GM of the century.

 

I don't really give credit for Millen drafting Megatron. It was a no-brainer. Same with Colts drafting Luck.

Idk about worst of the century but he's in the same tier as Millen, Idzik, etc... if nothing else we know he may be the most disliked GM by players. His personality alone is enough to put him in the running for "Worst GMs in recent memory". First time in my life I've ever seen Colts players react with such positivity to a firing.

[Superman]

4 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

But I do believe Colts fans need to stop trying to protect their reputation by believing he wasn't that bad. All he has to show for 5 drafts is a WR and an OG.

 

More like, Grigson haters need to stop sensationalizing how bad he was. He was bad enough without having to exaggerate. 

[NewColtsFan]

On 1/31/2017 at 11:49 AM, jameszeigler834 said:

Grigson is and was the worst GM of this century this guy seems to care about putting this team in the best possible position for success I didn't see at with Grigson.

 

I don't know why you waste your time and energy with nonsense like this.

 

It's not the least bit true.      There is zero argument for that.     None.  

 

Grigson's resume says 49-31.         That ends the debate on "the worst GM of this century"

 

If you can't make a simple argument that Grigson simply wasn't good enough,  then don't waste your time.

 

It's embarrassing.

 

[NewColtsFan]

15 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

He's almost as bad as Millen. Millen kept drafting WRs in the first round and it really cost him, but he got 1 right with Calvin Johnson. But equally as bad is having the best QB prospect with in the last 15 years and letting him get absolutely hammered for 5 years to the point that he had a shoulder issue for two seasons. It's really pick your poison tbh. But I do believe Colts fans need to stop trying to protect their reputation by believing he wasn't that bad. All he has to show for 5 drafts is a WR and an OG.

 

There you go again.     You, like a number of young posters here are your own worst enemy.

 

If you want people to take you seriously,  then don't make posts like this.

 

I'm not protecting my reputation or Superman's or anyone else.      

 

Grigson didn't let anything happen to Luck.    Lots of QB's get hurt in this league with good OL's in front of them.   Or do names like Carson Palmer and Tony Romo and Derek Carr mean nothing?

 

Grigson threw big money at FA lineman and they didn't work.     Grigson spent high picks on OL and they didn't work.      He was forced to use a NUMBER ONE on a center and he worked great.     But you didn't even list Ryan Kelly on your list of "all he has to show for 5 drafts is....."    

 

That's how much you hate Ryan Grigson.     You can't think clearly.     Your blood boils and you make illogical posts to try and kill him even more.      When you find yourself on the other side of an argument from someone line Superman ---- STOP!! ---- and realize that there's about a 99% chance that he's right and you're......  not.

 

You got your wish.    Grigson is gone.     You don't ever he to write his name again.    The future should be bright.      Stay focused on that......    Better days ahead.

 

[jameszeigler834]

11 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I don't know why you waste your time and energy with nonsense like this.

 

It's not the least bit true.      There is zero argument for that.     None.  

 

Grigson's resume says 49-31.         That ends the debate on "the worst GM of this century"

 

If you can't make a simple argument that Grigson simply wasn't good enough,  then don't waste your time.

 

It's embarrassing.

 

That 49-31 is nonsense did that result in us winning any championships no it didn't so that record is meaningless.