Chris Ballard interview 11am ET

[Smonroe]

39 minutes ago, MFT5 said:

 

hankins is Average what don’t y’all get 

 

I'm not sure what Hankins you're watching.  He's way above average.  And he was even better when he played the 4-3.

 

I'm not calling nonsense on Ballard, but let's face it, they cut him to avoid the $4.5M hit.  If it was really 'scheme', we wouldn't have Woods or Mbu on the teams right now.  And that's not even looking at Morrison.

 

My problem with cutting Hankins is that he's a known commodity who excelled at DT that now has to be replaced.

[Coltsman1788]

3 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

To be honest it did die off for a little while. But then the whole “it’s all Colts fans fault for Deflategate, waaah waah wah...” b.s. started up. And then of course the banner ridicule. McDaniels was just the tip of the iceberg.

 

Can’t stand that organization and their bratty entitled fans. 

True but all of that occurred before Ballard’s arrival here.  Thus he should have already been well aware of how Colts fans feel towards New England.   

[DraftMaster]

4 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Sorry, I am typing one handed. I got a serious dog bite on my right hand and I am right handed.

Pit bull bites not only are ugly but just the force of the bite bruises the bones deep down inside.

It's okay, the b is close to the h on a keyboard, sorry to hear about your hand and I hope it gets better.

[MFT5]

6 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

I'm not sure what Hankins you're watching.  He's way above average.  And he was even better when he played the 4-3.

 

I'm not calling nonsense on Ballard, but let's face it, they cut him to avoid the $4.5M hit.  If it was really 'scheme', we wouldn't have Woods or Mbu on the teams right now.  And that's not even looking at Morrison.

 

My problem with cutting Hankins is that he's a known commodity who excelled at DT that now has to be replaced.

 

all 4-3s aren’t the same Hankins is ok at best, not worth his price. if he was “way above avg” he would’ve fetched a 6th rounder minimum or idk, still been on the team

[Coltsman1788]

8 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

I'm not sure what Hankins you're watching.  He's way above average.  And he was even better when he played the 4-3.

 

I'm not calling nonsense on Ballard, but let's face it, they cut him to avoid the $4.5M hit.  If it was really 'scheme', we wouldn't have Woods or Mbu on the teams right now.  And that's not even looking at Morrison.

 

My problem with cutting Hankins is that he's a known commodity who excelled at DT that now has to be replaced.

Good point Smonroe. Al Woods doesn’t exactly strike me as someone who is athletic and fast.  Lol. 

[stitches]

29 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

I'm not sure what Hankins you're watching.  He's way above average.  And he was even better when he played the 4-3.

 

I'm not calling nonsense on Ballard, but let's face it, they cut him to avoid the $4.5M hit.  If it was really 'scheme', we wouldn't have Woods or Mbu on the teams right now.  And that's not even looking at Morrison.

 

My problem with cutting Hankins is that he's a known commodity who excelled at DT that now has to be replaced.

It actually can be multiple factors at once. NFL decision-makers rarely make decisions based on a single variable. If you listen to Ballard's interview you will hear him saying that the combination of the price and the fit was the reason for the release of Hankins. This is why Woods, who is paid much less hasn't been released. Because a cheap player who doesn't fit perfectly might still give you good value, while after some price-point the fit-issue overcome the value you are getting. 

 

And I don't know why you would even hint at Ballard not being honest on this one when he explicitly pointed out the financial side as part of the decision. Here's a direct quote from the interview we are discussing, right after he explained the fit problems on the field: "And at the end of the day Jonathan Hankins is a really good player and he's gonna play in this league... he can have a good long career going forward, but he just didn't fit. The financial obligations plus the non-fit made it tough." 

[GoColts00]

4 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Something he said stood out to me. He said there are Guards in rounds 2-4 that can start right away. I think we may get two of them in that range this year. Will do a mock in a bit with two Guards in that range.

Isaiah Wynn & Colby Gossett maybe

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, Coltsman1788 said:

Good point Smonroe. Al Woods doesn’t exactly strike me as someone who is athletic and fast.  Lol. 

It amazes me that people cannot connect the dots of such a simple problem that has even been explained by the GM in the very interview we are discussing - it's not just the fit, it's the fit+the price that make the value of this contract negative. This is why one player who is a fit problem might still be on the roster while another is cut - because he's at a much lower pricepoint where the value he provides on his contract is still positive. 

[shasta519]

39 minutes ago, bananabucket said:

 

He basically said Grant would be great as our #3, but we'd be okay if he was our #2.  Certainly did not imply we would not address the position, I think he's just saying we could survive as is if it comes to that.

 

I am going to assume this is nothing more than a smoke screen. I cannot imagine he doesn't bring in at least one legit WR, if not two.

[Coltsman1788]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

It amazes me that people cannot connect the dots of such a simple problem that has even been explained by the GM in the very interview we are discussing - it's not just the fit, it's the fit+the price that make the value of this contract negative. This is why one player who is a fit problem might still be on the roster while another is cut - because he's at a much lower pricepoint where the value he provides on his contract is still positive. 

That was Smonroe’s point. Price was the ultimate determinant because we have other DTs that also don’t fit the purported new scheme. 

[stitches]

5 minutes ago, Coltsman1788 said:

That was Smonroe’s point. Price was the ultimate determinant because we have other DTs that also don’t fit the purported new scheme. 

No it's not the ultimate determinant, because if he was a fit that price wouldn't have required him to get cut. It's both together. 

 

Here's the direct quote from Ballard after he explained the fit problem: "And at the end of the day Jonathan Hankins is a really good player and he's gonna play in this league... he can have a good long career going forward, but he just didn't fit. The financial obligations plus the non-fit made it tough." 

[Coltsman1788]

14 minutes ago, stitches said:

No it's not the ultimate determinant, because if he was a fit that price wouldn't have required him to get cut. It's both together. 

Ok I see what you are saying.   I was looking at it more from the point that both Hankins and Woods don’t fit and Hankins is gone because his price was a greater hit to the cap. Thus price being the ultimate deciding factor between the two.  I had already acknowledged that both didn’t fit.  I think we both know it’s some combination of  both fit and price. 

[crazycolt1]

25 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

I am going to assume this is nothing more than a smoke screen. I cannot imagine he doesn't bring in at least one legit WR, if not two.

The Colts have 9 more WRs on the roster besides the ones talked about.

Rodney Adams

Dres Anderson

KJ Brent

Krishawn Hogan

Seantavious Jones

Juston Liggons

Kolby Listenbee

DeAndre Smelter

James Wright

If the Colts didn't see some potential in these guys they wouldn't have been signed. We never know if any of these guys could make the final roster but don't be surprised if one or two of them do.

[OffensivelyPC]

4 hours ago, MTC said:

Another thing to note:

 

It did not sound like Ballard is prioritizing on adding another receiver (through the draft or free agency). Seems content with Hilton, Rogers, and Grant as the main guys. 

I don't think I really agree with that, but I'll wait till after the draft.  I don't see Grant or Rogers as a solid "No. 2," but let's be honest, it's not like we had a lot going for us last year anyway.

[Smonroe]

37 minutes ago, stitches said:

No it's not the ultimate determinant, because if he was a fit that price wouldn't have required him to get cut. It's both together. 

 

Here's the direct quote from Ballard after he explained the fit problem: "And at the end of the day Jonathan Hankins is a really good player and he's gonna play in this league... he can have a good long career going forward, but he just didn't fit. The financial obligations plus the non-fit made it tough." 

 

You're right, but I think it was MAINLY the financial obligation.  (BTW, I'm not questioning Ballard's honesty).   And I fully accept he knows more about building and funding a team for the long run a lot better than I'll ever know.  However, looking at all that cap money makes this decision hard to swallow for me.

 

As far as fit, look at the other DTs on the roster, not to mention Woods and Mbu who definitely don't fit the scheme.  What bothers me is that Hankins is faster and stronger than Ridgeway if you compare their combine numbers.  Ignore the meaningless 40 and look at their cone drills and 20 yard shuttles.  Tell me the numbers Hankins put up don't fit the scheme? 

 

What kind of DTs will we end up with that fit that scheme if a guy like Hankins isn't good enough?  As many others have said, I'd hate to see that scheme turn into the light DTs we used to have.  They'd get pushed all over the field. 

 

Okay, I'm done.  Time to move on...

[shasta519]

15 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

The Colts have 9 more WRs on the roster besides the ones talked about.

Rodney Adams

Dres Anderson

KJ Brent

Krishawn Hogan

Seantavious Jones

Juston Liggons

Kolby Listenbee

DeAndre Smelter

James Wright

If the Colts didn't see some potential in these guys they wouldn't have been signed. We never know if any of these guys could make the final roster but don't be surprised if one or two of them do.

 

That's true...and I could see one of them making the roster. But they had 6 TEs on the roster and still signed Ebron.

 

I think they still need at least one more legit WR...and I think the draft is the place to get one. 

[OffensivelyPC]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

It amazes me that people cannot connect the dots of such a simple problem that has even been explained by the GM in the very interview we are discussing - it's not just the fit, it's the fit+the price that make the value of this contract negative. This is why one player who is a fit problem might still be on the roster while another is cut - because he's at a much lower pricepoint where the value he provides on his contract is still positive. 

Once upon a time, I thought I could talk sense into people on this forum.  After many failed attempts, I just simply realized there are some people who are here to learn and are open to learning things or different ways of thinking than their own and some people who just want to repeat themselves looking for like-minded folks.  It's the new woo-sah of internet discussion...

 

EDIT:  For the record, not calling anyone out in particular.  Just responding to the difficulty of explaining things to people who don't want to understand the explanation.

[throwing BBZ]

1 hour ago, Smonroe said:

 

I'm not sure what Hankins you're watching.  He's way above average.  And he was even better when he played the 4-3.

 

I'm not calling nonsense on Ballard, but let's face it, they cut him to avoid the $4.5M hit.  If it was really 'scheme', we wouldn't have Woods or Mbu on the teams right now.  And that's not even looking at Morrison.

 

My problem with cutting Hankins is that he's a known commodity who excelled at DT that now has to be replaced.

 

So it would be incorrect to say Hankins is solid against the run and offers very little in passing situations?
And since teams often pass on 1st down, we would be have a front 4 that would be weakened by his presence.
Of course we would so he got fired.
 I thought it interesting that PFF graded Al Woods slightly higher than Hankins. Al can earn up to $2.5M if he meets incentives. And we have Grover for cheap. Either could be traded, cut, or kept as needed, based on Ballard adding better fits. Hankins played hard for us but was a problem in our 4 man front. Go Grover!

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, Smonroe said:

 

I'm not sure what Hankins you're watching.  He's way above average.  And he was even better when he played the 4-3.

 

I'm not calling nonsense on Ballard, but let's face it, they cut him to avoid the $4.5M hit.  If it was really 'scheme', we wouldn't have Woods or Mbu on the teams right now.  And that's not even looking at Morrison.

 

My problem with cutting Hankins is that he's a known commodity who excelled at DT that now has to be replaced.

 

Agree. It's tough to say Hankins doesn't fit the scheme when you look at other guys on the roster. And that's just on the DL. 

 

Ballard clearly said "financial obligations" and then added "plus the scheme fit." I am starting to think he doesn't want to pay anyone much money right now. 

[crazycolt1]

7 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

Agree. It's tough to say Hankins doesn't fit the scheme when you look at other guys on the roster. And that's just on the DL. 

 

Ballard clearly said "financial obligations" and then added "plus the scheme fit." I am starting to think he doesn't want to pay anyone much money right now. 

I have a feeling there will be a bunch more changes before the season starts.

[shasta519]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

I have a feeling there will be a bunch more changes before the season starts.

 

I would hope so...at least 2-3 established players that can help the transition on defense. Autry seems intriguing but he also doesn't seem like a 3-down guy at this point. I can't imagine Ballard is expecting to run out a handful of rookies, or even worse, some of the guys already on the roster.

[Coffeedrinker]

2 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

I'm not sure what Hankins you're watching.  He's way above average.  And he was even better when he played the 4-3.

 

I'm not calling nonsense on Ballard, but let's face it, they cut him to avoid the $4.5M hit.  If it was really 'scheme', we wouldn't have Woods or Mbu on the teams right now.  And that's not even looking at Morrison.

 

My problem with cutting Hankins is that he's a known commodity who excelled at DT that now has to be replaced.

I thought Hankins would be a good fit in a 4-3 Cover 2 type D.  He was able to push the pocket and provide some inside pass rush as well as being stout enough to be a force in the run game.  I can only guess that they are planning on moving Anderson inside to  DT.

 

But needless to say, I was surprised when I read Hankins was released.

 

Of course, way back in the day when the Colts hired Dungy I figured Johnson would have been a great fit for the Dungy-2 D and one of the first things they did was release Johnson.

 

So I guess that just proves, no matter how much I think I know... I apparently know very little.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

2 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

I'm not sure what Hankins you're watching.  He's way above average.  And he was even better when he played the 4-3.

 

I'm not calling nonsense on Ballard, but let's face it, they cut him to avoid the $4.5M hit.  If it was really 'scheme', we wouldn't have Woods or Mbu on the teams right now.  And that's not even looking at Morrison.

 

My problem with cutting Hankins is that he's a known commodity who excelled at DT that now has to be replaced.

A 'scheme fit' is a player with a low salary. Lol

 

Deshir came back for only 2 million....he fits like a glove.

 

[Smonroe]

22 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

A 'scheme fit' is a player with a low salary. Lol

 

Deshir came back for only 2 million....he fits like a glove.

 

 

I know you’re joking, but as Matt Danely said on his podcast, we have to spend at some point to meet the minimum salary cap average.  

 

I’m not really concerned about that as much as having quality players on the Dline.  Those days of having small DTs and getting run all over aren’t too far removed.  

[Steamboat_Shaun]

3 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

And then cut Burns? 

 

Cut Hurns, let Robinson walk in free agency, signed Norwell to a ridiculous contract, and extended Bortles. Something tells me that they're going run heavy.

[Finball]

48 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

I know you’re joking, but as Matt Danely said on his podcast, we have to spend at some point to meet the minimum salary cap average.  

 

I’m not really concerned about that as much as having quality players on the Dline.  Those days of having small DTs and getting run all over aren’t too far removed.  

 

Last year we spent 140M in cash. Right now we're at 110M. Rookies will add about 25M (due to signing bonuses). Maybe about 5M for in-season additions and let's say 15M for FA additions. Total of 300M for the past two seasons.

 

I'm not sure how overthecap (my source for these numbers) calculates the current cash spending, but if it's less due to cuts to 53, let's assume we spend more in FA.

 

If we assume salary cap rises by about 10M as it has the past few years, 89% figure for years 2017 to 2020 would be 650M, if the salary cap total is 730M.

 

So it won't be that hard to reach that 650M. Luck, Kelly, Hilton and Castonzo could be/need to be extended too before the next CBA. Ballards current FA strategy + extensions to Luck, Hilton, Castonzo and/or Kelly should reach 650M quite easily. Ballards current startegy just leaves us with loads of cap space if/as we get really good and allow us to keep more of our own homegrown talent.

[NewEra]

Polian was never a big spender in FA. You don't win football in fa. You draft and develope. And try to pick up some key pieces here and there.

[akcolt]

6 hours ago, krunk said:

I think Braden smith from auburn is one of them

I agree Braden plays and Ragnow  is a guy who goes later maybe the 3rd who I think helps day 1. 

[krunk]

2 minutes ago, akcolt said:

I agree Braden plays and Ragnow  is a guy who goes later maybe the 3rd who I think helps day 1. 

I agree with Ballard. There's some pretty good guards in this draft. You can get somebody other than Nelson and still come out pretty strong. Braden Smith is projected to be like Zeitler. Hadnt barely heard anybody on this forum mention his name.

[southwest1]

8 hours ago, J@son said:

 

Look, let me just say this...Irsay does say umm a lot.  That's true.  But look, let me just say this too, CB says "look" and "let me just say this" almost as much. lol

I can't dispute anything you said Jason. It's completely accurate. However, if my choice is between a myriad of "umm's" or "Let me just say this," I go with the look variation every time because Chris is very blunt, hands on, & I never wonder what the hades he's thinking when he steps up to a live mic. 

[Jason_]

13 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

I can't dispute anything you said Jason. It's completely accurate. However, if my choice is between a myriad of "umm's" or "Let me just say this," I go with the look variation every time because Chris is very blunt, hands on, & I never wonder what the hades he's thinking when he steps up to a live mic. 

 

Oh  I absolutely agree. Felt the same about Reich after his first presser.

[Four2itus]

16 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

I can't dispute anything you said Jason. It's completely accurate. However, if my choice is between a myriad of "umm's" or "Let me just say this," I go with the look variation every time because Chris is very blunt, hands on, & I never wonder what the hades he's thinking when he steps up to a live mic. 

Personally, I don't get the need for folks to point out the unlikable aspects of Mr. Irsays speaking. It's not going to change, and it will happen....again, and again. Why do people talk about it? In reality, I see his "Um's" mentioned many times more on this site than I ever have to experience watching Jim. 

[southwest1]

My favorite part of that whole interview was when laughed at the question: Chris are you sick & tired of all these reporters asking you about Luck's health? Is it enough to make you drink? That was a genuine hades yeah man laugh that he didn't expect at all because it gave our GM a chance to be human & drop his professionalism for a split second. 

 

I love that man when guys  go you're darn right. Can we at least get something new & fresh in the reporter rotation? Enough already. LOL! I just enjoy when smooth guys with polished answers actually drop the veil for a moment & just lay it all all out on the table. And then his quick witted follow up...You journalists owe me a few free drinks man. 

 

Ballard rocks what can I say. 

[superrep1967]

8 hours ago, MTC said:

Ballard says he cut Hankins due to scheme. Mentions athleticism and speed. Sounds like they tried to trade him away, but nothing came about. 

Yeah, he all but actually said that we're going to be like the Dungy defense small but fast and athletic. 

[superrep1967]

11 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

My favorite part of that whole interview was when laughed at the question: Chris are you sick & tired of all these reporters asking you about Luck's health? Is it enough to make you drink? That was a genuine hades yeah man laugh that he didn't expect at all because it gave our GM a chance to be human & drop his professionalism for a split second. 

 

I love that man when guys  go you're darn right. Can we at least get something new & fresh in the reporter rotation? Enough already. LOL! I just enjoy when smooth guys with polished answers actually drop the veil for a moment & just lay it all all out on the table. And then his quick witted follow up...You journalists owe me a few free drinks man. 

 

Ballard rocks what can I say. 

My favorite part was when they ask him about the rivalry is back on comment. But he actually didn't answer it. But we all know there was way more to that comment then it just coming out of his mouth. By the way was Ballard the one who fired Kevin Bowen if so that had to be awkward for them.

[superrep1967]

42 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Oh  I absolutely agree. Felt the same about Reich after his first presser.

I really like Ballard a lot and believe he will turn this franchise around it just going to require patience from us fans. 

[southwest1]

29 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Personally, I don't get the need for folks to point out the unlikable aspects of Mr. Irsays speaking. It's not going to change, and it will happen....again, and again. Why do people talk about it? In reality, I see his "Um's" mentioned many times more on this site than I ever have to experience watching Jim. 

True, at Jim's age, he is who he is & we all know the "um's" come with the territory. We all have nervous ticks or rituals we do in one form or another myself included. I respect Jimmy & all his vices because imperfections make us all more relatable & dare I say likable because very few of us live in the beautiful people realm. 

 

If this helps, we joke about Jimmy's um's in jest because they are his public speaking trademark. We're not doing it to hurt Irsay. Think of it like seeing a friend fall in a funny way. Once you know they are okay, you assist them back on their feet, pick up their stuff, & dust em off. Bu,t there will come a time later on where you bring this episode up again, just to tease them again. It's human nature or maybe just a guy thing. Comic hazing for lack of a better phrase. It's not mean spirited. Just a rite of passage among our peers to convey you're accepted among our distorted, misfit tribe man. 

[superrep1967]

6 hours ago, TdungyW/12 said:

1. Bring Allen in he just got cut by the jags .... he will bolster our WR core. 

 

2. If a QB goes 1-3 we have a very GOOD .... 95% chance to grab Chubb! If CB is saying there are good G’s in the second round.

 

3. If a QB goes 1-4 we are grabbing Chubb 100%. We are filling spots and with his mention of line in second rounds shows to me he’s looking at Barkley or Chubb .... I think Barkley goes #4 personally to browns. 

 

1. Darnold 

2. If giants don’t trade back they take barkley if not they take a future QB in Rosen/Allen/may

3. Rosen/Allen/may

4. Browns take Barkley 

5. Broncos take Rosen/Allen/may

6. Chubb

Man, I hope we get Chubb if for nothing else to rub it in Belichick's face. 

[deedub75]

6 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

I wonder if he reached out to Miami? Hankins seem like he would've been a nice cheap alternative to Suh.

 

I think any potential trade partner knew he was probably getting released anyway. 

[superrep1967]

8 hours ago, Btown_Colt said:

I call bull. He knew what he was saying/doing.

Yeah, I'm not buying that either but he has to say now. But we all know now what's deep inside him.