Who in the hell wants to go 8-8?

[aaron11]

1 minute ago, J@son said:

 

care to explain?

nah, youll just argue with whatever i say lol

[Jason_]

1 minute ago, aaron11 said:

nah, youll just argue with whatever i say lol

 

yes I absolutely will because your statement is both ridiculously premature and downright absurd.  

[Pacergeek]

13 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Ballard hasn't manipulated anyone into thinking anything, and no Ballard will not be getting heat no matter what the Colts record is over the next 3 games.

 

If you'd paid any attention whatsoever to anything that Ballard has said since being hired then you'd understand where we're at and what his reasons have been for everything he's done or hasn't done.  

Ballard has stated building through the draft and patience are the keys to long-term success. However, with how horribly Ballard's 2017 draft class has turned out, I don't fully trust his vision. How can fans believe Ballard's strategy is going to work, when he had an atrocious 2017 draft class. Everyone wants to give him a pass for screwing up the 2017 draft, but I feel he should be held accountable

[Jason_]

12 minutes ago, Pacergeek said:

Ballard has stated building through the draft and patience are the keys to long-term success. However, with how horribly Ballard's 2017 draft class has turned out, I don't fully trust his vision. How can fans believe Ballard's strategy is going to work, when he had an atrocious 2017 draft class. Everyone wants to give him a pass for screwing up the 2017 draft, but I feel he should be held accountable

 

Ballard should be held accountable for every draft, but to say that the 2017 draft was horrible and atrocious is absurd.

[Yoshinator]

1 hour ago, J@son said:

 

What part of "doesn't guarantee" was hard to understand.  Yes, the Colts are most definitely better after this past draft.  But how much better were they after the 2013 draft?  And before anyone goes there, no that was not exclusively the fault of Grigson and/or Pagano.  That was an overall horrible draft.

 

So, no, it's NOT a garbage argument.  It's a perfectly valid point.  Not every draft class is created equal and even players who look great going into the draft will bust big time.  

2013 we had the 24th overall pick and Grigson traded our 2nd round pick for Vontae Davis, so you're using a horrible example there. Despite how bad the class was, it was a late round pick in each round we had, and it only proves my point that we probably would have drafted better with an early pick in each round. Even Grigson did well in 2012 with an early pick and Ballard>Grigson. My point stands, no matter if a draft is the worst of all time, I'd rather have the choice of many more players each round than get limited by what other teams choose before us that round. I also trust Ballard to use an early round choice well, in both trades and actual picks.

[lollygagger8]

This thread sucks 

 

[Jason_]

16 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

2013 we had the 24th overall pick and Grigson traded our 2nd round pick for Vontae Davis, so you're using a horrible example there. Despite how bad the class was, it was a late round pick in each round we had, and it only proves my point that we probably would have drafted better with an early pick in each round. Even Grigson did well in 2012 with an early pick and Ballard>Grigson. My point stands, no matter if a draft is the worst of all time, I'd rather have the choice of many more players each round than get limited by what other teams choose before us that round. I also trust Ballard to use an early round choice well, in both trades and actual picks.

 

 

I'm not arguing that point.  I'm arguing your assertion that the statement "Losing doesn't guarantee you get better the next year" is garbage.  It's not garbage.  Yes, odds of success in the draft are higher the earlier you pick...but just because "odds of success" are higher does not mean anything is guaranteed.

 

 

 

 

[Yoshinator]

Just now, J@son said:

 

 

I'm not arguing that point.  I'm arguing your assertion that the statement "Losing doesn't guarantee you get better the next year" is garbage.  It's not garbage.  Yes, odds of success in the draft are higher the earlier you pick...but just because "odds of success" are higher does not mean anything is guaranteed.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough. I'm just going to say 1.) I feel real comfortable with an early pick with Ballard, as evidence from last year would suggest. 2.) An early pick allows you to trade down for more draft capital to build for the future. Without the 3rd pick, we wouldn't have Turay, Braden Smith, and the Jets 2nd rounder next year. and 3.) We probably aren't making the playoffs, and everyone who doesn't gets a pick 1-20. I'd rather get an early pick for doing the same as everyone else (not making the playoffs). We aren't in the same boat as everyone else who needs a QB that is picking early. That's my reasoning for wanting to pick early. We can grab an elite D-Lineman, get healthy and be that much better next year. Do you honestly think we have a chance at the SB? If not, you shouldn't want a better record and a later pick if that's not possible. I think we are a year away, especially with the injuries and the 1-4 record.

[Superman]

42 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

2013 we had the 24th overall pick and Grigson traded our 2nd round pick for Vontae Davis, so you're using a horrible example there. Despite how bad the class was, it was a late round pick in each round we had, and it only proves my point that we probably would have drafted better with an early pick in each round. Even Grigson did well in 2012 with an early pick and Ballard>Grigson.

 

Probably not. Grigson blew it at #24, and he probably would have blown it no matter where we picked that year. The Vontae trade was the best thing to come out of that draft, hands down.

 

7 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

3.) We probably aren't making the playoffs, and everyone who doesn't gets a pick 1-20. I'd rather get an early pick for doing the same as everyone else (not making the playoffs). We aren't in the same boat as everyone else who needs a QB that is picking early. That's my reasoning for wanting to pick early. We can grab an elite D-Lineman, get healthy and be that much better next year. Do you honestly think we have a chance at the SB? If not, you shouldn't want a better record and a later pick if that's not possible. I think we are a year away, especially with the injuries and the 1-4 record.

 

Okay, so obviously, the higher you pick, the better your chances of getting a good player. But at what point does winning games become important? Only if you're in the playoff race? What about a team that has lost a dozen one score games over the last two seasons? 

 

Part of developing as a team is learning to win games, both for the players and the coaching staff. It's part of the culture that needs to be built, and it's not something that comes automatic just because you sign or draft good players. The Colts somehow short-circuited that process in 2012, but that's not usual. And before that, we had a decade of winning teams, so it's been awhile since the Colts have had to go through that learning curve. But it's a significant part of building a winner.

 

So at what point does your focus shift away from the black/white proposition of 'either you make the playoffs, or you hope for the highest draft position you can'? At what point do you think it's beneficial for a team to go 8-8, as a stepping stone to being a playoff team?

 

Or do you not think that's an important stage in the development of a winning team?

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Probably not. Grigson blew it at #24, and he probably would have blown it no matter where we picked that year. The Vontae trade was the best thing to come out of that draft, hands down.

 

 

Okay, so obviously, the higher you pick, the better your chances of getting a good player. But at what point does winning games become important? Only if you're in the playoff race? What about a team that has lost a dozen one score games over the last two seasons? 

 

Part of developing as a team is learning to win games, both for the players and the coaching staff. It's part of the culture that needs to be built, and it's not something that comes automatic just because you sign or draft good players. The Colts somehow short-circuited that process in 2012, but that's not usual. And before that, we had a decade of winning teams, so it's been awhile since the Colts have had to go through that learning curve. But it's a significant part of building a winner.

 

So at what point does your focus shift away from the black/white proposition of 'either you make the playoffs, or you hope for the highest draft position you can'? At what point do you think it's beneficial for a team to go 8-8, as a stepping stone to being a playoff team?

 

Or do you not think that's an important stage in the development of a winning team?

For us, going 8-8 is not an important stage anymore. Luck proved in 2012-2014 he can win 11 games with less talent than we have now. That stage is pointless now. We need to grab two or three more elite players (I'd say one or two in the draft and one in FA), get healthy, and make a run. This year just isn't our year. We aren't winning the SB and it wasn't expected anyway. Let Ballard do his magic one more year with an early pick, grab an elite D-Lineman and O-Lineman in the draft (which fits his philosophy of building through the trenches), take a top FA (we have the cap space), get healthy, and go for it in 2019. That was our expected timeframe anyway, and we'll be able to fill our weaknesses and make a real run by then.

[jvan1973]

7 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

For us, going 8-8 is not an important stage anymore. Luck proved in 2012-2014 he can win 11 games with less talent than we have now. That stage is pointless now. We need to grab two or three more elite players (I'd say one or two in the draft and one in FA), get healthy, and make a run. This year just isn't our year. We aren't winning the SB and it wasn't expected anyway. Let Ballard do his magic one more year with an early pick, grab an elite D-Lineman and O-Lineman in the draft (which fits his philosophy of building through the trenches), take a top FA (we have the cap space), get healthy, and go for it in 2019. That was our expected timeframe anyway, and we'll be able to fill our weaknesses and make a real run by then.

The team isn't going to tank.   

[Defjamz26]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Okay, so obviously, the higher you pick, the better your chances of getting a good player. But at what point does winning games become important? Only if you're in the playoff race? What about a team that has lost a dozen one score games over the last two seasons? 

 

Part of developing as a team is learning to win games, both for the players and the coaching staff. It's part of the culture that needs to be built, and it's not something that comes automatic just because you sign or draft good players. The Colts somehow short-circuited that process in 2012, but that's not usual. And before that, we had a decade of winning teams, so it's been awhile since the Colts have had to go through that learning curve. But it's a significant part of building a winner.

 

So at what point does your focus shift away from the black/white proposition of 'either you make the playoffs, or you hope for the highest draft position you can'? At what point do you think it's beneficial for a team to go 8-8, as a stepping stone to being a playoff team?

 

Or do you not think that's an important stage in the development of a winning team?

Very well said, but I’d like to add on to your point for @Jared Cisneros

 

Its not all about drafting high and signing the top FAs. Look at the Dolphins the last couple of years for example. They’ve drafted high and spent money in FA? Where has it gotten them? Look at the Giants right now. They’re likely going to pick in the top 10 again this year, and probably the year after that if they don’t learn how to win football games. They have arguably two of the most explosive players on offense who were both top 20 picks and it hasn’t amounted to much this season.

 

If you’re just loosing games but acquiring top draft picks, nothing will change. It likely means you have a coaching and culture problem. If you’re not getting better each year, you’ll forever be stuck in purgatory. Draft picks and FAs don’t fix everything. It’s about changing your game plan week to week based on the strengths and weaknesses of your team vs the strength and weaknesses of the opposing team. It’s about developing players and putting them in the best position to win.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Defjamz26 said:

Very well said, but I’d like to add on to your point for @Jared Cisneros

 

Its not all about drafting high and signing the top FAs. Look at the Dolphins the last couple of years for example. They’ve drafted high and spent money in FA? Where has it gotten them? Look at the Giants right now. They’re likely going to pick in the top 10 again this year, and probably the year after that if they don’t learn how to win football games. They have arguably two of the most explosive players on offense who were both top 20 picks and it hasn’t amounted to much this season.

 

If you’re just loosing games but acquiring top draft picks, nothing will change. It likely means you have a coaching and culture problem. If you’re not getting better each year, you’ll forever be stuck in purgatory. Draft picks and FAs don’t fix everything. It’s about changing your game plan week to week based on the strengths and weaknesses of your team vs the strength and weaknesses of the opposing team. It’s about developing players and putting them in the best position to win.

I'll counter this with one point. We have an elite QB in Andrew Luck and they have no QB. We can draft any elite player we want next year if we finish with a top 5 pick, and they would have to draft a QB. We can just take top players and FA's that fit our scheme and go for it next year when we are healthy and fix our weaknesses. They can't do that.

[Peterk2011]

1 hour ago, Pacergeek said:

Ballard has stated building through the draft and patience are the keys to long-term success. However, with how horribly Ballard's 2017 draft class has turned out, I don't fully trust his vision. How can fans believe Ballard's strategy is going to work, when he had an atrocious 2017 draft class. Everyone wants to give him a pass for screwing up the 2017 draft, but I feel he should be held accountable

 

If you really think Ballard's 2017 draft class was/is atrocious, then I suggest to review your opinion, because your expectation is probably unrealistic. And I think unrealistic is probably an understatement. ;)

 

A realistic expectation from ANY draft for ANY GM is to find cca. 3 "long term" starters and find another 1-2 who contribute for 1-2 years. "Long term" is 3 to 5 years in NFL terms, thats the average. If Hooker, Hairston and Walker will play out their rookie contracts as starters and maybe one of them gets an extension (because he worth it), then its already an average draft. If Wilson will join them, it will be above average. I know it sucks, but that's the reality. You can go back decades and analyze ANY team's drafts, you will find that this is the realistic / average outcome.

 

Btw, I think some people misunderstand what "building through drafts" means. It's not something like "Ballard wants to put extra focus on drafts, so he will be more successfull (than usual)".  This makes no sense. Every team, every time put 100% effort in drafting, there is no "we put even more in there". As you cannot say I want my son to grow up in 10 years instead of 20, so I will put more effort in raising him. It will not work, it won't happen. You have to go through the entire process from the beginning to the end.

 

So "building through draft" simply a statement, that the Colts needed (and still need) more, than adding some missing pieces here and there. They needed to rebuild their foundation, and there is no other way than drafting young talents. 

[aaron11]

lots of mixed opinions about hooker, and i think that where a lot of this arguing is coming from 

 

 

[Defjamz26]

2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I'll counter this with one point. We have an elite QB in Andrew Luck and they have no QB. We can draft any elite player we want next year if we finish with a top 5 pick, and they would have to draft a QB. We can just take top players and FA's that fit our scheme and go for it next year when we are healthy and fix our weaknesses. They can't do that.

We had a top pick in each round this year. We’re still 1-4. And fixing all your weaknesses is one offseason requires you to either overspend or overdraft. You have to draft BPA to a degree, and then build those players up. If you try and bypass that process it comes falling apart sooner than later. Good teams aren’t bought. They’re built.

 

Say we do finish with the number 2 overall pick. You’re basically counting on Ballard to hit on all of his picks in the first four rounds and that all of those guys will be ready to go now and won’t need devolopment. That’s a tall order. Now you could go out and sign a bunch of FAs to make up for that, but guess what that does? Takes away from the playing time of the young players, and unless the position is QB, these young players have to play. They can’t just ride the bench for 2 years and then be ready to go. That’s for several reasons.

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

We had a top pick in each round this year. We’re still 1-4. And fixing all your weaknesses is one offseason requires you to either overspend or overdraft. You have to draft BPA to a degree, and then build those players up. If you try and bypass that process it comes falling apart sooner than later. Good teams aren’t bought. They’re built.

 

Say we do finish with the number 2 overall pick. You’re basically counting on Ballard to hit on all of his picks in the first four rounds and that all of those guys will be ready to go now and won’t need devolopment. That’s a tall order. Now you could go out and sign a bunch of FAs to make up for that, but guess what that does? Takes away from the playing time of the young players, and unless the position is QB, these young players have to play. They can’t just ride the bench for 2 years and then be ready to go. That’s for several reasons.

We're 1-4 because of a new coaching staff, Luck being rusty, and a rash of injuries. The talent is probably the 4th reason why we are doing bad. If we pick 2nd overall, we will get either Oliver or Bosa. That's a hit. We have two 2nd round picks. If we hit on one of them, and the other is a depth pick, that's 3 hits. We may or may not hit on the 3rd rounder, and we have two 4ths as well. With the rest of the draft, undrafted FA's, and FA, there's no reason we wouldn't be able to make a run next year with a 2nd year staff and Luck and the rest of the team healthy next year. This year it just seems out of our hands.

[Peterk2011]

4 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

lots of mixed opinions about hooker, and i think that where a lot of this arguing is coming from 

 

Hooker is currently the second best graded player in the defense according to pff (ahead of Leonard, Sheard, etc.), behind only Autry. I'm not saying that pff is the football bible, but Hooker is fine. And he only will be better.

[aaron11]

Just now, Peterk2011 said:

 

Hooker is currently the second best graded player in the defense according to pff (ahead of Leonard, Sheard, etc.), behind only Autry. I'm not saying that pff is the football bible, but Hooker is fine. And he only will be better.

i agree with pffs grade and think hes a good player, the issue is we are not getting great value out of him.

 

offenses just avoid him pretty easily in this cover two, and they dont need to throw his way to beat us.   

[Peterk2011]

11 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

We're 1-4 because of a new coaching staff, Luck being rusty, and a rash of injuries. The talent is probably the 4th reason why we are doing bad. If we pick 2nd overall, we will get either Oliver or Bosa. That's a hit. We have two 2nd round picks. If we hit on one of them, and the other is a depth pick, that's 3 hits. We may or may not hit on the 3rd rounder, and we have two 4ths as well. With the rest of the draft, undrafted FA's, and FA, there's no reason we wouldn't be able to make a run next year with a 2nd year staff and Luck and the rest of the team healthy next year. This year it just seems out of our hands.

 

Or .... simply because they couldn't make a few key plays when needed, while other teams could. Does this make the Colts overall worse than for example the Jets or Titans? No, it doesn't. A few failed or successfull plays does not define a team. However .... It might be an indication, that finishing games is an area that they have to focus on, and improve, because they are missing something there. They have to learn winning close games again. And how can you learn it other than go out and do it? So, honestly, winning some games might be way-way more important than a few draft positions for this team right now.

[King Colt]

Why is it tough to gauge the Colts? Injuries is the big one. We all know that. If all healed and played out the season maybe 8-8 is a reality. If not, doom & gloom. The OL even if healthy are they good? To date, the OL starters have  history of being cotton candy.  Can the secondary shut down a first rate passing game? To date, no. The AFC South is full of holes but be realistic, should the Colts somehow make the playoffs they should make sure the room reservations are for one night only.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Or .... simply because they couldn't make a few key plays when needed, while other teams could. Does this make the Colts overally worse than for example the Jets or Titans? Not necessarily. A few failed or successfull plays does not define a team. However .... It might be an indication, that finishing games is an area that they have to focus on, because they are missing something there. They have to learn winning close games again. And how can you learn it other than go out and do it? Win games. Honestly, this might be way-way more important than a few draft positions for this team right now.

Inexperience is definitely a factor, and that will come with time. I want to see this team do as well as anyone, but it will take time. It'll also take another draft class. Ballard is drafting well, and that's a positive. That's why I want him to have another early pick, because I believe he can blow any draft out of the water with one, and that's our best chance to win a SB.

[Peterk2011]

9 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i agree with pffs grade and think hes a good player, the issue is we are not getting great value out of him.

offenses just avoid him pretty easily in this cover two, and they dont need to throw his way to beat us.   

 

Yeah, that's an issue. I do hope that the reason we play so "vanilla" (it's really not complicated for opponents) is because Eberflus is limiting what he is doing with them right now. They are still learning the system - even veterans -, and many of them are young and inexperienced. So I'm ok with this right now. However, I do want to see more complexity in the long term. Mix cover with man a bit more, show something else than we actually play, etc., etc. That would help maximize Hookers talent as well.

[ThorstenDenmark]

8-8 this season is far far away.

 

I know we have been competitive in more or less every single game this season, BUT we are 1-4 and havn't been able to finish or start well enough to get the wins. 

 

If we were near the playoffs we wouldn't have a crazy amount of money to spend in free agency or be among the least capped teams in the league.

 

What we do need is difference makers on the offensive side of the ball, the defence is actually pretty good and loaded with young talent.

The offence is Andrew Luck and then what? 

 

TY Hilton is good, but he's not as good as a couple of years ago.

Ebron is good but not great.

RB is a mess and I can't see a clear cut nr 1.

 

So what we need is offensive talents who can help Andrew Luck and I would prefer a top pick in the draft rather than going 8-8 and fall short of the playoffs.

 

Right now, we wont win the AFC south and have nothing to do in the playoffs, as we are simply to depleted a team to compete against Kansas City, Pats or any other teams this year.

 

I hope we get the worst record this year, and then trade the 1st overall pick to a QB needy team for additional picks, due to the fact that we really need talent on this roster.

 

TK

Denmark  

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

For us, going 8-8 is not an important stage anymore. Luck proved in 2012-2014 he can win 11 games with less talent than we have now. That stage is pointless now. We need to grab two or three more elite players (I'd say one or two in the draft and one in FA), get healthy, and make a run. This year just isn't our year. We aren't winning the SB and it wasn't expected anyway. Let Ballard do his magic one more year with an early pick, grab an elite D-Lineman and O-Lineman in the draft (which fits his philosophy of building through the trenches), take a top FA (we have the cap space), get healthy, and go for it in 2019. That was our expected timeframe anyway, and we'll be able to fill our weaknesses and make a real run by then.

 

Just to be clear, "8-8" represents the developmental "learning to win" stage. It's not meant to be literal, just means that phase where the team has to start putting it all together, but still isn't ready to be a true playoff (or championship) contender.

 

And I think that's a major point of contention for the opposing sides of this argument. I think you would agree that being a good football team -- especially for several years going forward -- is about more than just acquiring good players. There's little point in having good players if you don't develop them properly and put them in position to win. And even the best drafted players are still rookies, and need to adjust to the pro game before they really hit their stride. You can draft in the top five every year, but you still have to put it all together on the field, over the course of an entire season, before you can contend.

 

I think we all agree that the Colts aren't going to make a championship run this year. (I'm not writing off their playoff chances yet because it's too early, although the odds of a 1-4 team making the playoffs aren't good.) But that doesn't mean that a year of learning and development wouldn't be good -- or even necessary -- for this team. 

 

You seem to be of the opinion that having another good draft class and adding a few free agents is the only missing piece. I think that the players already on the roster need to continue to develop, they need to learn how to be pros, how to finish, how to handle adversity and come out with a positive result, how to overcome a losing streak, how to string together multiple wins (something even Luck hasn't really much of), etc. 

 

And even though Luck showed that magic early in his career, it wasn't enough in 2016, and it hasn't been enough through five games this year. Even if it was, the other 50 guys on the team have to pull their weight, which is what has been missing throughout the Luck era. 

 

IMO, having Luck doesn't make that developmental "learning to win" stage unnecessary. I think prior history illustrates just how critical that stage is, especially for the rest of the team, and the coaching staff. 

[Coltsman1788]

On 10/9/2018 at 12:47 PM, Defjamz26 said:

 

Words of a true apologist. Too bad there’s no award for being competitive but loosing.

Yeah...all that means is the Colts keep making too many mistakes to win close games.  They are 1-4 right now for a reason.  Oh and that record is with Luck. 

[stitches]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Probably not. Grigson blew it at #24, and he probably would have blown it no matter where we picked that year. The Vontae trade was the best thing to come out of that draft, hands down.

 

 

Okay, so obviously, the higher you pick, the better your chances of getting a good player. But at what point does winning games become important? Only if you're in the playoff race? What about a team that has lost a dozen one score games over the last two seasons? 

 

(long post incoming, I apologize)

 

That's a hard question to answer and IMO this is not the exact question to ask though. IMO there are different scopes to what different part of the organization are doing and what their ultimate goals should be.

 

For example - for the players winning games should be always important. They should always try to do their best to win games.

 

For the coaches, winning games should be very important but for a team in rebuild like the Colts, developing the young talent should also be high on the priority list. For example, if you could finish 5-11 and get maximum development of the youth(i.e. you give them live action and live with some of their mistakes instead of putting in mediocre vets that might be more stable and solid right now but are not part of the long-term future) or you finish 8-8 and your young players are sitting behind vets that you will discard next summer, I think putting the youngsters in should take priority for the coaches. (of course this is not perfect description of how things work, but I'm trying to give an idealized version of what considerations should come into the picture - for example you might need some vets on the field along with the youth in order to get maximum development out of them and give them more of a functional team environment to develop into).

 

And here we come to the management - IMO management(front office) should be trying to maximize long-term prolonged success. This might include not prioritizing winning AT ALL at certain stages, this would mean - you wouldn't care what the current win-loss record looks like as long as you think it's for the good of the long-term success of the team(this might include draft considerations, youth development considerations, personnel development considerations, etc). 

 

Quote

 

Part of developing as a team is learning to win games, both for the players and the coaching staff. It's part of the culture that needs to be built, and it's not something that comes automatic just because you sign or draft good players. The Colts somehow short-circuited that process in 2012, but that's not usual. And before that, we had a decade of winning teams, so it's been awhile since the Colts have had to go through that learning curve. But it's a significant part of building a winner.

 

So at what point does your focus shift away from the black/white proposition of 'either you make the playoffs, or you hope for the highest draft position you can'? At what point do you think it's beneficial for a team to go 8-8, as a stepping stone to being a playoff team?

 

Or do you not think that's an important stage in the development of a winning team?

 

I'm not going to say it's all black and white, but IMO the "learning to win" thing is overstated in many occasions. I think ultimately talent wins. I think if you have the right pieces on the field and they are coached by the right coaches and the game is called by the right playcallers you will win.

 

There is room for building chemistry, building rapport between units or within units(especially offensive line) and I think this is essentially what the "learning to win" phase is... it's not really "learning to win" it's actually getting better as individuals and as a team and in the process increasing the win probability... but IMO once you have that and the right pieces the "learning to win" comes very quickly. The Rams were stuck in mediocrity for over a decade and everything changed literally in one off-season the moment they got the right coach and QB. The Eagles were meh for several years and everything changed the moment they got their QB and the right coach and playcallers. There are tons of examples like that where high end talent 'learns to win' very very VERY quickly. 

 

On your question, like I said above - I think different parts of the team should have different mandates about what is important. Again - players should always play to win. Coaches should largely try to win within the constraints of what is being prioritized at the respective period of time. IMO it's not always the same priority. In the beginning of a rebuild IMO the priority for the coaches should be toward developing talent and trying to win within that constraint. The stronger the roster becomes the more the priority should shift toward winning and the developing talent should be done within that constraint. 

 

I don't really believe in the "8-8 stepping stone to being a playoff team" as a required step. Sometimes it happen and that's OK, sometimes that step is omitted, depending on how your talent is developing and how much talent you get in the off-season be it from the draft, the FA or through trades. For example, I can see a scenario where we go 5-11 this season and we are fringe-contenders next year with a strong draft with 3 more top 40 picks in a what seems like a great DLine class, and Ballard going strong at impact players in free agency. 

[BloodyChamp]

I agree with all of the competitive natured posts in this thread. As for the perspective of 8-8, I agree that there is 1 according to each situation but that it would be a disappointment for Colts fans this year after plodding through all those cHuCk PaGaNo HaS nEvEr HaD a LoSiNg SeAsOn years. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

(long post incoming, I apologize)

 

Good, thoughtful post. 

 

What's immediately obvious is that it doesn't make sense to prioritize playing time for veteran players who don't fit into your long term plan. Slauson vs. Smith comes immediately to mind; Slauson is a journeyman vet who probably wouldn't have been here next season, while Smith is expected to be one of the core members of the OL moving forward. If the competition was close, you play the young guy, even if it might cost you a win this season, because it's best for the development of your team. Ballard regularly states that you can't develop young players if you don't let them play, and I agree with that.

 

You mention building chemistry and rapport, getting better as individuals and as a team -- basically, defining that as the "learning to win" phase. I agree that once you have that, and the right coaching staff, and the right QB, the wins can come pretty quickly. 

 

But you're separating having a good year from the "learning to win" phase. I would submit that the Rams were still in that phase last season. They had a great year, but we knew they were upstarts that most likely wouldn't win in the playoffs, and they lost at home to a more experienced team that was better prepared and proved capable of controlling the game from start to finish. That was a developmental year for the Rams. Now, they're this year's version of the 2017 Eagles. Speaking of which...

 

The Eagles went 7-9 in 2016, the first year of Wentz and Pederson. They started out 3-0, then struggled to finish games for the rest of the season, and they lost six of those games by one score. They went 2-9 during a two month stretch. That was a developmental year. 

 

There are lots of variables, and we can't necessarily quantify every element of what goes into building a winning team. But we know the basic formula: good, disciplined players; good coaching and player development; relative health; good QB play. If you have a good mix of those elements, and you maintain that mix, you can contend for several years. 

 

I have no problem with benching veterans for younger players, I'm even okay with trading veterans after 6 weeks or so for picks, and to make room for more young players. Especially when your team is obviously not ready to contend. 

 

But let's acknowledge that 'tank for the first pick' is not a red herring or a strawman. Literally in this thread, people are promoting that as a good strategy for building a team -- purposely abandoning trying to win games in favor of getting a higher draft slot, since we're not going to make the playoffs this season (and that's premature, btw). Your argument is different, and we should differentiate the two. 

 

So now, specific to the Colts: We are starting or heavily relying on 20-23 players that have fewer than two full seasons of NFL experience. Another 15 guys are in the 3-6 year range. We only have 10 guys on the active roster who are 6 or more years into their careers, and some of them are legitimate pieces of our presumed core -- Luck, Hilton, AC. It would be hard to go any further into a youth movement at this point. The guys on our roster right now are mostly guys with whom we'll be moving forward, or from whom we need to upgrade. In many cases, we won't know which category they fall into unless -- like Ballard says -- we let them play. 

 

I think we're already well into your plan. Anything more and we're moving into the purposely losing area, which is a nonstarter. I think we keep moving forward with what we have this season, and let the chips fall where they may. It's looking like this team is going to be somewhere between 5-8 wins this year, and I think that as they work through this season, this can be a developmental year for the team. 

 

If the Eagles are a model -- the team that picked #14 in 2017, signed a few notable veterans, then showed up as the best team in the league that season, one year after going 7-9 with a rookie HC and QB -- then it supports the idea that pushing through a developmental season is one of those elements that contributes to a contending program. 

 

I'm not arguing against the value of picking higher in the draft. I'm arguing that no matter how many times you pick high in the draft, at a certain point the team on the field has to put it all together, and I don't think that happens overnight. It doesn't always look the same -- one team might have an easier schedule and win more games, another team might have a lot of injuries, etc. -- but I do think that it's a part of the process. 

[stitches]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Good, thoughtful post. 

 

What's immediately obvious is that it doesn't make sense to prioritize playing time for veteran players who don't fit into your long term plan. Slauson vs. Smith comes immediately to mind; Slauson is a journeyman vet who probably wouldn't have been here next season, while Smith is expected to be one of the core members of the OL moving forward. If the competition was close, you play the young guy, even if it might cost you a win this season, because it's best for the development of your team. Ballard regularly states that you can't develop young players if you don't let them play, and I agree with that.

 

I think this is one of the exceptions that is reasonable and not very controversial and I think it was obvious what Ballard did - the O-line is the unit he heavily emphasized in the off-season, both in FA and in the draft. I think this is the unit he didn't want to compromise with and the unit he wanted to play at the best possible version of themselves right now, but it had nothing to do with the unit itself or with the development of the youth... it had to do with Luck. That's why he got vets at both guard and tackle. He wanted to guarantee some floor for the unit so Luck wouldn't be thrown into a horrible situation while trying to return from injury. Now, the unit has been hit with some horrible injury luck and Austin forgetting how to play football overnight screwed up that plan to a degree. IMO that's why Slauson played over Smith and would have played over him until Smith showed he's a better player in practice(or pre-season). 

 

Quote

 

You mention building chemistry and rapport, getting better as individuals and as a team -- basically, defining that as the "learning to win" phase. I agree that once you have that, and the right coaching staff, and the right QB, the wins can come pretty quickly. 

 

But you're separating having a good year from the "learning to win" phase. I would submit that the Rams were still in that phase last season. They had a great year, but we knew they were upstarts that most likely wouldn't win in the playoffs, and they lost at home to a more experienced team that was better prepared and proved capable of controlling the game from start to finish. That was a developmental year for the Rams. Now, they're this year's version of the 2017 Eagles. Speaking of which...

 

The Eagles went 7-9 in 2016, the first year of Wentz and Pederson. They started out 3-0, then struggled to finish games for the rest of the season, and they lost six of those games by one score. They went 2-9 during a two month stretch. That was a developmental year. 

 

 

I think we are arguing over semantics(were the Rams 'learning to win' or 'contender' last year... it's probably somewhere in between, etc). My larger point was that the talent on the field and on the sidelines(and in the booth) ultimately decides how good your team is. Developmental years exist and I agree with you calling 2016 that for the Eagles. improving your young players is important part of building up your team, not every improvement happens in the off-season... a lot of it is happening every week on the field during the season. This is what I called "getting better individually and as a team". 

 

 

Quote

 

There are lots of variables, and we can't necessarily quantify every element of what goes into building a winning team. But we know the basic formula: good, disciplined players; good coaching and player development; relative health; good QB play. If you have a good mix of those elements, and you maintain that mix, you can contend for several years. 

 

 

 

 

Yep, agree on that. 

 

Quote

 

I have no problem with benching veterans for younger players, I'm even okay with trading veterans after 6 weeks or so for picks, and to make room for more young players. Especially when your team is obviously not ready to contend. 

 

But let's acknowledge that 'tank for the first pick' is not a red herring or a strawman. Literally in this thread, people are promoting that as a good strategy for building a team -- purposely abandoning trying to win games in favor of getting a higher draft slot, since we're not going to make the playoffs this season (and that's premature, btw). Your argument is different, and we should differentiate the two. 

 

 

The first paragraph and the second paragraph here... read them again. In the first paragraph you practically describe what the people you criticize in the second paragraph really want to do. They are more direct and more in your face by calling it outright "tanking" and calling it "go for the no. 1 pick", but if you ask them how exactly they want to accomplish that, I bet a lot of them will answer in very similar terms to how your first paragraph here reads. (BTW I agree it's premature + like I said previously, unless you bench Luck, you have very little chance at a successful tankjob, because Luck can win you games by himself)

 

 

Quote

 

So now, specific to the Colts: We are starting or heavily relying on 20-23 players that have fewer than two full seasons of NFL experience. Another 15 guys are in the 3-6 year range. We only have 10 guys on the active roster who are 6 or more years into their careers, and some of them are legitimate pieces of our presumed core -- Luck, Hilton, AC. It would be hard to go any further into a youth movement at this point. The guys on our roster right now are mostly guys with whom we'll be moving forward, or from whom we need to upgrade. In many cases, we won't know which category they fall into unless -- like Ballard says -- we let them play. 

 

I think we're already well into your plan. Anything more and we're moving into the purposely losing area, which is a nonstarter. I think we keep moving forward with what we have this season, and let the chips fall where they may. It's looking like this team is going to be somewhere between 5-8 wins this year, and I think that as they work through this season, this can be a developmental year for the team. 

 

 

 

Yeah. I agree - we are already setup in a way that resembles a tanking team. Let me put it this way - if we had a rookie QB, this roster would be outright tanktastic. It has all the signs and Ballard even has done some of the hallmarks of a tank - releasing/trading vets that are more helpful for wins now but will likely not be long-term part of the next great Colts team. 

 

I think it's worth emphasizing that in certain respects you need competent vets, not only to show the young players what a pro looks like in the league, but also to set up some base level of performance, some base level of what looks like a football unit, that is conducive for the development of the youth. For example, how would Hooker learn his responsibilities and what he should do in certain situations if his counterpart in the backfield has no idea what he's doing and Hooker has to cover for his mistakes again and again and again... at some point this becomes counter productive and starts building bad habits rather than develop skills and good habits. 

 

Quote

 

If the Eagles are a model -- the team that picked #14 in 2017, signed a few notable veterans, then showed up as the best team in the league that season, one year after going 7-9 with a rookie HC and QB -- then it supports the idea that pushing through a developmental season is one of those elements that contributes to a contending program. 

 

I'm not arguing against the value of picking higher in the draft. I'm arguing that no matter how many times you pick high in the draft, at a certain point the team on the field has to put it all together, and I don't think that happens overnight. It doesn't always look the same -- one team might have an easier schedule and win more games, another team might have a lot of injuries, etc. -- but I do think that it's a part of the process. 

 

Yeah, I largely agree. Get the talent(and continuously develop it), let them gel together and get adjusted to the system and their responsibilities... profit,

 

OK here's a hypothetical. Lets say all 12 games until the end of the season are within a field goal difference. Absolutely nothing else is different, except for the outcome of 1 FG by Vinatieri in each game - he either makes it and we win, or he misses and we lose. The quality of play from everybody on the team is the same either way. Absolutely nothing is different except for those field goals. If you choose for him to make all of them the hypothetical stipulates that we get blown out in the first round of the playoffs(since we both seem to think this team is not ready to compete at the highest level). Assume that there are no long-term consequences for the psyche of the players either way(positive or negative) from Vinatieri missing or making all the kick. So ... it's all in your hands. How many do you want him to make? Lets say 0 means you get the no. 1 pick in the draft and 12 means you get to the playoffs but you are ingloriously eliminated in the first round of the playoffs. 

[jvan1973]

If we end up with a top 5 pick,   it won't be because they tanked.   

[Peterk2011]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

OK here's a hypothetical. Lets say all 12 games until the end of the season are within a field goal difference. Absolutely nothing else is different, except for the outcome of 1 FG by Vinatieri in each game - he either makes it and we win, or he misses and we lose. The quality of play from everybody on the team is the same either way. Absolutely nothing is different except for those field goals. If you choose for him to make all of them the hypothetical stipulates that we get blown out in the first round of the playoffs(since we both seem to think this team is not ready to compete at the highest level). Assume that there are no long-term consequences for the psyche of the players either way(positive or negative) from Vinatieri missing or making all the kick. So ... it's all in your hands. How many do you want him to make? Lets say 0 means you get the no. 1 pick in the draft and 12 means you get to the playoffs but you are ingloriously eliminated in the first round of the playoffs. 

 

This is so much hypothetical, that even if you find an answer that you are satisfied with, you won't be able to do any consequences because it has zero connection with real life football.

 

I believe that in professional sports - especially in team sports - you don't have the luxury to consciously "tank". Tanking is not just a tactical thing, but inevitably it will soon become a mental state. You put yourself in a state when your mind says the game is not "that" important, and this alone will immediately make you non-competitive. You won't only loose game, but you will be blown out, because the margin between being good and being bad is so small. And you can't learn anything from loosing games with the wrong mindset .... other than realizing that you have to have the right mindset. That's two steps back and one step forward. 

 

So, I think, that there is no coach in the NFL who would consciously "tank", regardless of the situation. They would take more risks, yes. For example go for the 4th in overtime, even if the odds against them. Or they risk not signing veterans, but give their young players playing time. Etc. They would take all kinds of (extra) risks, but ultimately, they always into winning. They would never play to loose.

[2006Coltsbestever]

As I have posted many of times on here, been a fan since 1984 and the only time I didn't care if we won was in 2011 once we got to 0-8 because I knew Andrew Luck was coming out and we could get him with the #1 pick. I knew we would need an eventual replacement for the Great Manning and he was it in my eyes. Just a rare circumstance for me. Other than that tanking is for losers and the Draft is a crapshoot IMO. I was even happy when we beat Houston in the last game of the season last year costing us the#2 pick. I just hate it when the Colts lose, it bothers me.

[Four2itus]

I started a thread earlier, about the importance of drafting, vs development. vs play calling-scheme. I only received one reply that answered the question asked. 

 

But to reiterate, I see a great deal of back and forth about draft slot, playing to win or no, and that the Colts are not making an effort to win now. I see it all as a reflection of several things; occluded understanding of team building, a fixation on a draft slot number, and a bit of a self-centered view of I want to win now.

 

So as fans, the first question should be, which is truly more important...winning a SB at the cost of long term success, or building for long term success...which may underuse a stars current talents because of age/longevity? (Luck for exmp.) Answering this question first directs a fan to far different perspectives of team building.

 

As a long time fan, who has seen many down years, struggling teams, and individual game losses....I want long term validity. I would not trade our last stretch of NFL prowess where this team won so often, it was considered the norm, for lets say.....another SB won or two, but cut the length of our validity in half. Nope....no freaking way.

 

But most importantly, I want to see development. I want a staff that brings in the right coaches, installs the right schemes, drafts the right players....not just names and stats...and then develops those players to fit their culture. Any FA and I mean ANY, that they choose to bring in, need to be of the character to humble themselves to the players who have already built that locker room. 

 

I believe the Colts are building that very locker room. I also believe it is not time yet to add any players just to appease fans. 

 

So to answer the OP question again, "Who wants to go 8-8"?

 

I do. 

 

[jvan1973]

Tanking is a losers mentality.   No way Frank is down for that.   Irsay isn't either.   Grow up

[braveheartcolt]

Some well thought out (long) posts, which might be slightly over complicating our current position. I suggest 'winning' is the best form of development, provided the coaches amd players understand the elements and the differences on why we win that 'close' game, rather than lose it. Lady Luck (no relation to Andrew) also comes into play, something that I feel has been totaly overlooked in all these fine argumens. I still believe that 'tanking' on our perfect season in 2009 cost us the Super Bowl, not Hank Baskett or Peyton's interception. 

 

One small thing that has irked me all the way through these lengthy back and forths is the playoff nonesense. If (BIG IF, and unlikely) we happen to make the playoffs, then we have a realistic opportunity to go deep:

 

1. We will have finished 'hot'. It's not how to start it is how you finish. Yawn, but it is true.

2. If we finish hot, we likely have most of our injuries cleared. 

3. If we finish hot, Andrew is going from strength to strength.

4. If we finish hot, the play calling and coaching continues to climb upwards.

5. If 1-4 happen, momentum is a winning formula.

6. Take out the Chiefs and the Rams, and everybody is beating everybody else. The Chiefs are known to fade, and they have a rookie QB who could implode. The Rams could be a few injuries from being drawn back into the pack. Gurley is the difference maker in that team. He needs to stay healthy.

7. I don't have a 7th point.

 

So in the very unlikely scenario that we do make the playoffs, I would not be so quick to quote us as a 'one and done'.

 

Apologies for being an optimist, but all this talk of tanking has an air of Mr Premature about it. And if it doesn't work out, and we end up with a top 5 draft pick, then good for us.....

[Superman]

2 hours ago, stitches said:

 

I think this is one of the exceptions that is reasonable and not very controversial and I think it was obvious what Ballard did - the O-line is the unit he heavily emphasized in the off-season, both in FA and in the draft. I think this is the unit he didn't want to compromise with and the unit he wanted to play at the best possible version of themselves right now, but it had nothing to do with the unit itself or with the development of the youth... it had to do with Luck. That's why he got vets at both guard and tackle. He wanted to guarantee some floor for the unit so Luck wouldn't be thrown into a horrible situation while trying to return from injury. Now, the unit has been hit with some horrible injury luck and Austin forgetting how to play football overnight screwed up that plan to a degree. IMO that's why Slauson played over Smith and would have played over him until Smith showed he's a better player in practice(or pre-season).  

 

Between March and September, the plan on the OL pretty much went out the window. AC got hurt, Howard was terrible, and the one position they maybe expected to be a toss-up was RG, which Slauson won. So the line is only 40-60% of what they intended. Ballard tried to create a situation where the line could be somewhat settled, but it hasn't worked out the way he hoped. 

 

Quote

I think we are arguing over semantics(were the Rams 'learning to win' or 'contender' last year... it's probably somewhere in between, etc). My larger point was that the talent on the field and on the sidelines(and in the booth) ultimately decides how good your team is. Developmental years exist and I agree with you calling 2016 that for the Eagles. improving your young players is important part of building up your team, not every improvement happens in the off-season... a lot of it is happening every week on the field during the season. This is what I called "getting better individually and as a team". 

 

What constitutes a developmental year is somewhat a matter of semantics, but my point is that the "learning to win" phase doesn't necessarily feature a team that can't win close games. The Rams got some luck (they were healthy, but their best division opponent was ravaged with injuries), they played a third place schedule, and they benefited by getting rid of the most regressive and out of touch head coach in the league. In another division, they probably don't win 11 games.

 

I agree that a lot of the development happens on the field, but the outcome isn't the only relevant factor. A team can learn as much from a tough win as they do from a tough loss, depending on the character of the staff and the locker room. 

 

Quote

The first paragraph and the second paragraph here... read them again. In the first paragraph you practically describe what the people you criticize in the second paragraph really want to do. They are more direct and more in your face by calling it outright "tanking" and calling it "go for the no. 1 pick", but if you ask them how exactly they want to accomplish that, I bet a lot of them will answer in very similar terms to how your first paragraph here reads. (BTW I agree it's premature + like I said previously, unless you bench Luck, you have very little chance at a successful tankjob, because Luck can win you games by himself)

 

You're giving a great benefit of the doubt to a lot of posters. We're already playing young guys, and the complaints still exist on this board. I think people who say they want a high draft pick want the Colts to actively secure that high draft pick. They said it last year -- 'even if Luck is ready, just shut him down and get a high pick.' I think when they say tank, they mean it, even though it's entirely impractical and premature.

 

And at the same time, there's a different argument that always pops up -- the value of having a high draft position vs the benefit of winning as many games as you can. And that gets played out to its extremes, eventually. 

 

Quote

Yeah. I agree - we are already setup in a way that resembles a tanking team. Let me put it this way - if we had a rookie QB, this roster would be outright tanktastic. It has all the signs and Ballard even has done some of the hallmarks of a tank - releasing/trading vets that are more helpful for wins now but will likely not be long-term part of the next great Colts team.

 

This is definitely semantics, but I see a team developing. I buy Ballard's story regarding the guys he got rid of  -- Hankins wasn't a great fit and was highly paid; Anderson was a better fit but roster management was a factor, and Hunt has filled that role admirably; Melvin received an offer but wanted to leave. Either way, I don't think the objective was at all to undermine the quality of the roster. 

 

Now, not spending money is definitely a long play. But it's the same as not swinging for the fences for a veteran player like Mack, or Bell. It's not the right time, yet. But again, the development of the team is paramount. 

 

Quote

OK here's a hypothetical. Lets say all 12 games until the end of the season are within a field goal difference. Absolutely nothing else is different, except for the outcome of 1 FG by Vinatieri in each game - he either makes it and we win, or he misses and we lose. The quality of play from everybody on the team is the same either way. Absolutely nothing is different except for those field goals. If you choose for him to make all of them the hypothetical stipulates that we get blown out in the first round of the playoffs(since we both seem to think this team is not ready to compete at the highest level). Assume that there are no long-term consequences for the psyche of the players either way(positive or negative) from Vinatieri missing or making all the kick. So ... it's all in your hands. How many do you want him to make? Lets say 0 means you get the no. 1 pick in the draft and 12 means you get to the playoffs but you are ingloriously eliminated in the first round of the playoffs.

 

Accepting all the terms of your hypothetical, yes, there's a value to losing those games and getting a higher draft position. But as I said before, part of the debate is the value of higher draft position vs the value of building a winning program/culture. I won't even try to go through all the variables that this hypothetical presents, I'll just say that I think there is a benefit to finishing games, and all the intangibles that go along with winning. Just look at the Colts last season -- by the end of the year, the team was obviously affected by the close losses.

 

Long story short -- and we're well past that -- I just think it's not as simple as 'draft high until you have a great roster, then start winning.' I think losing double digit games year after year can have a negative impact on the team, and I think developmental years on the field are important. 

 

We agree on a lot of this, by the way. 

[Matthew Gilbert]

On ‎10‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 1:04 PM, braveheartcolt said:

OP, I would wager a small sum of cash that you have not purchased any tickets to see the Colts this year. Have you ever played competitive sports? Have you ever played to lose? Tanking is a figment of a losers imagination......

How much?

[Defjamz26]

8 hours ago, stitches said:

(long post incoming, I apologize)

 

 

 

 

A very insightful and thought out post. While it was directed towards Superman, I hope you don’t mind if I interject.

 

I think the one thing you may have overlooked is how winning games contributes to the development of a rebuilding team. Essentially you’re not solely evaluating talent. You’re evaluating the ability of your talent to win games. You’re also devoloping players into guys that can play winning football. If you don’t prioritize winning, you can’t ever hope to have a consistent winner.

 

Everything is connected. You draft and develop guys because you believe they can help you win. But you have to pursue that. You can’t just sit back with your feet up and tell the guys to just play and not worry about winning untill it’s been 3-4 yearsvand you feel like now you have the talent to compete. Conpetiveness isn’t something you can just flick on or off like a switch. You have to coach winning football. You have to develop players that can help WIN football games.

 

That’s why you play your young players. You’re seeing what it takes to win with the current guys you have. For example, if we lose and we’re giving up big plays in the passing game what does that mean? Is another year of development for young starters in the secondary going to improve that next season and help you win games or do you need more talent? We lost against the Patriots. Would we have won with better RBs, better run blocking, or both? Can Quincy Wilson lock up number 1 receivers? If it’s 4th and 10 at the goal line and the opposing team needs a TD to win, is he the guy who breaks up the pass attempt for the game winner? These are all questions that the FO asks and can only find out by playing to win. You have to evaluate the wins AND the losses to truly rebuild.

[Coffeedrinker]

Many times on this forum I am reminded why I am so glad that fans do NOT make decisions for my favorite football team.  This thread is a fantastic reminder.