Chris Ballard interview 11am ET

[southwest1]

18 minutes ago, superrep1967 said:

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.

Yes, I'm sure a number of INDY fans echo that sentiment s-1967. We were all ticked off over what Josh McDaniels did & it felt good to know that our GM was furious too because that rival back on comment let everybody know that if anything this Colts rebuild got accelerated over Josh's lack of professionalism, intensified the front office resolve to win another ring, & it's refreshing to see Ballard driven to put this mistake behind him as soon as possible. 

 

Ballard probably didn't want to give NE extra bulletin board material until we are ready to go toe to toe with Boston in all 3 phases--A few yrs away yet honestly. 

 

I just liked hearing our GM put into words what we were all feeling: Betrayed, mad as hades, & focused to right this wrong by leveling the playing field in short order. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

9 hours ago, csmopar said:

he's not gonna announce publicly if he's done signing FA.  He actually said that even though they feel good that they'll continue looking at the market...

 

And it is peak "Cap Casualty" season.  Ballard and Co. already have an idea who will get squeezed out (less likely exactly when), and may have some on their radar when they do get cut.

 

9 hours ago, Farns01 said:

This reminds me of the Bill Polian way of doing free agency.  He never really chased the premium free agents and was always getting beat up about it on this message board.  

 

Bill got burned bad with the Corey Simon FA acquisition.  HIs biggest mistake he still says.  Later, he coined the phrase- "In Free Agency, you pay average players like they're good, you pay good players like they're great, and pay great players like Hall of Famers..."

 

1 hour ago, superrep1967 said:

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

 

Seems we are going to single gap penetrating fronts, not 2 gapping lane cloggers. 

 

There is no question 4 things on D are Paramount to get- 

3 Technique DT - Think Gerald McCoy, or Aaron Donald  types...

RT DE  -  Think Dwight Freeney

Mike LB - Think Urlacher, Kuechly or Sean Lee types...

WILL LB - Think Lance Briggs, Lavonte David types...

 

{Wasn't Ballard around with the Bears back in their Lovey Smith Tampa 2 days?)

 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

2 hours ago, deedub75 said:

 

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

 

That’s probably true, but that’s never stopped Miami in the past.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

That’s probably true, but that’s never stopped Miami in the past.

Or Cleveland

[theanarchist]

He mentioned that Cato June would be moved from S to middle linebacker in the new scheme.... oh wait...

[VaAllDay757]

13 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.

Money was never the issue....hankins said it himself he preferred the 3-4 scheme than the 4-3 scheme....and why wouldn't al woods be on the team? Not every player on the line is gonna be fast and athletic we need someone to plug up the hole and woods is that guy unless he gets cut later on

[Smonroe]

3 hours ago, VaAllDay757 said:

Money was never the issue....hankins said it himself he preferred the 3-4 scheme than the 4-3 scheme....and why wouldn't al woods be on the team? Not every player on the line is gonna be fast and athletic we need someone to plug up the hole and woods is that guy unless he gets cut later on

 

Did you hear Ballard or read what he said?  Money WAS the issue.  At least read or listen to Ballard before you make that kind of argument.  Here's his direct quote:

 

"At the end of the day, Johnathan Hankins is a really good player and he’s gonna play in this league and have a good, long career going forward, but he just didn’t fit the financial obligations, plus the non-fit just made it tough.”

 

Of course he said he preferred the 3-4 when he came to Indy, that's the system he was getting paid to play.  My point about Woods, and a few other NT's and slower DTs on the team was that they don't fit the scheme either.  They said this D is predicated on speed and athleticism.  Hankins was faster and quicker than most of the DTs, but those guys are on the team because they fit the 'financial obligations.  So money was more important than scheme, obviously.

 

[Cynjin]

18 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Did you hear Ballard or read what he said?  Money WAS the issue.  At least read or listen to Ballard before you make that kind of argument.  Here's his direct quote:

 

"At the end of the day, Johnathan Hankins is a really good player and he’s gonna play in this league and have a good, long career going forward, but he just didn’t fit the financial obligations, plus the non-fit just made it tough.”

 

Of course he said he preferred the 3-4 when he came to Indy, that's the system he was getting paid to play.  My point about Woods, and a few other NT's and slower DTs on the team was that they don't fit the scheme either.  They said this D is predicated on speed and athleticism.  Hankins was faster and quicker than most of the DTs, but those guys are on the team because they fit the 'financial obligations.  So money was more important than scheme, obviously.

 

 

I listened to Ballard and taken in context it sounded like it had more to do with a scheme fit than financial.  I'm not going to say that the 4.5 mill that the Colts were going to have to pay him wasn't a factor, but based on comments from Ballard and Hankins it seems that scheme was the biggest issue.

[Chucklez]

22 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. 

That's a very short trio... especially as they are all primarily slot guys...  Hilton can play everywhere, but the other two are best in the slot. I guess we'll be using Doyle, Ebron and Swoope a lot.

[dgambill]

22 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. 

That seems weird since he literally just brought in Meredith and Inman both. I think he definitely is still in search for another WR. Considering both are like 6'2 6'3 I think he is looking at a big wr too.

[Smonroe]

1 hour ago, Cynjin said:

 

I listened to Ballard and taken in context it sounded like it had more to do with a scheme fit than financial.  I'm not going to say that the 4.5 mill that the Colts were going to have to pay him wasn't a factor, but based on comments from Ballard and Hankins it seems that scheme was the biggest issue.

 

He did stress scheme first, but at the end he added financial obligation.  If you're releasing guys because of scheme, you'd dump Woods and Mbu first.  But their 'financial obligation' wasn't pressing.  Hankin's was since he was due $4.5M if they kept him a few more days.

 

So, while I don't agree that Hankins won't fit our scheme, I still have faith in Ballard.  My beef is that Hankins is a FOOTBALL PLAYER, while other guys are just football players, if you know what I mean.  I dread going back to small DTs that may be fast but will get bowled over by the interior linemen.  Remember those days?

[Cynjin]

1 minute ago, Smonroe said:

 

He did stress scheme first, but at the end he added financial obligation.  If you're releasing guys because of scheme, you'd dump Woods and Mbu first.  But their 'financial obligation' wasn't pressing.  Hankin's was since he was due $4.5M if they kept him a few more days.

 

So, while I don't agree that Hankins won't fit our scheme, I still have faith in Ballard.  My beef is that Hankins is a FOOTBALL PLAYER, while other guys are just football players, if you know what I mean.  I dread going back to small DTs that may be fast but will get bowled over by the interior linemen.  Remember those days?

 

Oh yeah, I remember those days, not good memories either.  I liked Hankins, but apparently, Ballard tried to trade him, with no takers.  I just think that his release had to do more with the change in defense.

[TKnight24]

14 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

He did stress scheme first, but at the end he added financial obligation.  If you're releasing guys because of scheme, you'd dump Woods and Mbu first.  But their 'financial obligation' wasn't pressing.  Hankin's was since he was due $4.5M if they kept him a few more days.

 

So, while I don't agree that Hankins won't fit our scheme, I still have faith in Ballard.  My beef is that Hankins is a FOOTBALL PLAYER, while other guys are just football players, if you know what I mean.  I dread going back to small DTs that may be fast but will get bowled over by the interior linemen.  Remember those days?

Man, Arian Foster & Maurice Jones-Drew definitely remember those days 

 

[VaAllDay757]

4 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

Did you hear Ballard or read what he said?  Money WAS the issue.  At least read or listen to Ballard before you make that kind of argument.  Here's his direct quote:

 

"At the end of the day, Johnathan Hankins is a really good player and he’s gonna play in this league and have a good, long career going forward, but he just didn’t fit the financial obligations, plus the non-fit just made it tough.”

 

Of course he said he preferred the 3-4 when he came to Indy, that's the system he was getting paid to play.  My point about Woods, and a few other NT's and slower DTs on the team was that they don't fit the scheme either.  They said this D is predicated on speed and athleticism.  Hankins was faster and quicker than most of the DTs, but those guys are on the team because they fit the 'financial obligations.  So money was more important than scheme, obviously.

 

I know what ballard said but it doesn't mean he can't make up a lie to make himself look better in an interview you keep believing what they say ballard has someone to tell him what to say to the fans that sounds good but I'm going off of what the player said himself....hankins

[Smonroe]

6 minutes ago, VaAllDay757 said:

I know what ballard said but it doesn't mean he can't make up a lie to make himself look better in an interview you keep believing what they say ballard has someone to tell him what to say to the fans that sounds good but I'm going off of what the player said himself....hankins

 

I wish you would have applied some punctuation marks to that sentence but I'll attempt to reply anyway. 

 

Even if Hankins said he'd rather play in a 3-4, that has nothing to do with what Ballard said.  For the hundredth time, Hankins was an all pro playing in a 4-3.  If you find a quote from Hankins saying he'd rather be cut than play in a 4-3, then I'll accept that had something to do with it.

 

Now why is it when I quote the GM, I'm doubting him or calling him a liar?  Isn't it obvious to everyone when he said "scheme and financial obligations" he mean they cut him before the had to pay the $4.5M?  Woods and Mbu, who by no way or shape fit the scheme, will be cut later.  There's no hurry with their contracts.  Hankins was quicker than Ridgeway and Stewart (check the drill numbers) but they may survive the scheme because of their contracts. 

 

This isn't rocket science.  Ballard is building his team with an eye to the future.

[VaAllDay757]

51 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

I wish you would have applied some punctuation marks to that sentence but I'll attempt to reply anyway. 

 

Even if Hankins said he'd rather play in a 3-4, that has nothing to do with what Ballard said.  For the hundredth time, Hankins was an all pro playing in a 4-3.  If you find a quote from Hankins saying he'd rather be cut than play in a 4-3, then I'll accept that had something to do with it.

 

Now why is it when I quote the GM, I'm doubting him or calling him a liar?  Isn't it obvious to everyone when he said "scheme and financial obligations" he mean they cut him before the had to pay the $4.5M?  Woods and Mbu, who by no way or shape fit the scheme, will be cut later.  There's no hurry with their contracts.  Hankins was quicker than Ridgeway and Stewart (check the drill numbers) but they may survive the scheme because of their contracts. 

 

This isn't rocket science.  Ballard is building his team with an eye to the future.

If he didn't mind playing in the 4-3 scheme then why did he leave the giants???? It would make no sense keeping a player who won't like the scheme anyway he's not gonna play to the fullest so cut him since nobody wants to trade for him and don't worry about any punctuations if you can read good enough then you shouldn't have to worry about it

[Smonroe]

1 minute ago, VaAllDay757 said:

If he didn't mind playing in the 4-3 scheme then why did he leave the giants???? It would make no sense keeping a player who won't like the scheme anyway he's not gonna play to the fullest so cut him since nobody wants to trade for him and don't worry about any punctuations if you can read good enough then you shouldn't have to worry about it

 

Do you really expect me to answer such a ridiculous question?  First of all, the Giants were playing a 3-4 when he left - for a bigger contract! 

 

I guess I can't read good enough.  At this point I'm guessing you're either a really young kid or a troll.  Either way, I'm done.  Have a good life.  Go Colts.

[VaAllDay757]

1 minute ago, Smonroe said:

 

Do you really expect me to answer such a ridiculous question?  First of all, the Giants were playing a 3-4 when he left - for a bigger contract! 

 

I guess I can't read good enough.  At this point I'm guessing you're either a really young kid or a troll.  Either way, I'm done.  Have a good life.  Go Colts.

Man you couldn't be anymore wrong they were playing a 4-3 scheme before they are switching to a 3-4 this season......do us a favor and stop talking you don't know what you're talking about

[Smonroe]

11 minutes ago, VaAllDay757 said:

Man you couldn't be anymore wrong they were playing a 4-3 scheme before they are switching to a 3-4 this season......do us a favor and stop talking you don't know what you're talking about

 

My bad.  They were on their way to the 3-4 during the 16 season when Hankins was there: "The personnel the Giants have accumulated, along with the hiring of position coaches Patrick Graham (defensive line), Jeff Zgonina (assistant defensive line), and Bill McGovern (Linebackers), all of whom have significant experience coaching in 3-4 schemes, could suggest a move toward a 34 front."

 

Either way, do me a favor and stop talking to me. 

[VaAllDay757]

3 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

My bad.  They were on their way to the 3-4 during the 16 season when Hankins was there: "The personnel the Giants have accumulated, along with the hiring of position coaches Patrick Graham (defensive line), Jeff Zgonina (assistant defensive line), and Bill McGovern (Linebackers), all of whom have significant experience coaching in 3-4 schemes, could suggest a move toward a 34 front."

 

Either way, do me a favor and stop talking to me. 

Do yourself a favor and log off