The Official Ballard IS Impressing Me Thread

[Trueman]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I still don't get the popular fabrication of some "big issue" he needed to overcome.

 

Teams have gone from 8-8 to winning records before, when not faced with dead cap space.  And that record was with a less than 100% Luck.

 

If he doesn't want to get out in front of his skis and spend cap money to win too much now as to not compromise his draft position or contract staggering, that's understandable.  But its not a mess he inherited.

 

Changing schemes and jettisoning personnel is as big of a setback as any problem he inherited, as far as the number of years it takes to win again. He made that choice (and I like it).  He didn't need to change the D scheme.

 

Golly.  He inherited a franchise QB, a #1WR, a top 10 LT, a quality C, a quality TE, (not to mention the SuperSwoope that everyone loves).    He inherited Frank Gore, but let him go (without a fight). He inherited cap flexibility.

 

When he got here, he needed 2 good O linemen and a #2 WR.  He had cap space.  

 

The D is on him because of the scheme change, in part.

 

If he takes time, its on him.  It might be for the better, but there are several choices he could have made to not be in this position after a season and a half. 

LOL , where to begin?

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Cynjin said:

 

Any objective person would say that the Colts' roster, when Ballard was hired, was very poor on overall talent.

Sure, but it's actually pretty easy for a GM to correct since he had the important, expensive pieces and cap space to fill in the rest.  

 

If he wants to take time to build through the draft, that's fine.  It's probably better.  But that's not due to anything he inherited.  That philosophy is on him.

[Cynjin]

14 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Sure, but it's actually pretty easy for a GM to correct since he had the important, expensive pieces and cap space to fill in the rest.  

 

If he wants to take time to build through the draft, that's fine.  It's probably better.  But that's not due to anything he inherited.  That philosophy is on him.

 

Yeah, it's super simple.  It is amazing GMs get paid millions of dollars a year, being that it is so easy to correct what the previous GM had done and then build a playoff caliber team.

[Peterk2011]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Sure, but it's actually pretty easy for a GM to correct since he had the important, expensive pieces and cap space to fill in the rest.  

 

If he wants to take time to build through the draft, that's fine.  It's probably better.  But that's not due to anything he inherited.  That philosophy is on him.

 

Oh, c'mon.... Name one "expensive piece" in the defense, Ballard had in place. Name just one. Do you know when those "expensive pieces" are in place? If you have a stud pass rusher, a stud defensive interior, at least one stud linebacker, two good corners, and at least one fine safety. That's something you can call "he had some pieces". Ballard had none. NONE. Period.

 

And thats just the defense. He had a left tackle, and a promising C in the OL: But that is only 2 of the 5 pieces. You know, that the OL is as good as the worst player in there right? He HAD to find two guards, and a RT. That alone is a tall task to acquire if there is only one guy in the free agency, who can be considered elite, but he asks 15 mill per, and still, half of the league is willing to pay that price for him. And he is just a guard. For a tackle, you have to pay 16 per, and you get a Nate Solder... And if you somehow finished with the OL, you still need to find a #2, #3 WR (a Sammy Watkins gets 16 per, even a Moncrief gets 10 per), a RB (a McKinnon is 7.5 per), a TE (a Ebron is 7.5 per), etc, etc.

 

It's impossible to rebuild a team from free agency, if it has so many holes the Colts had last year. It's just impossible. If you think it is, tell me about that team please. Which team/GM built his team from free agency in the salary cap era?

[DougDew]

Nevermind.  Sorry for derailing the party.  Carry on.

[AZColt11]

Hey and sometimes you get a little lucky like he did with "he who shall not be named" backing out at the last minute and getting a guy who will likely be a better HC.  It's not what CB had in mind, but it's worked out for the better.

[Dingus McGirt]

18 hours ago, threeflight said:

6-17.

 

 

Six and seventeen.

And?

[masters1]

I think he's doing a great job on a rebuild that will take a little time. Unfortunately too many on this board want immediate satisfaction and are willing to give him 5 minutes.

[a06cc]

Sorry to say this, but I love these threads after we win a game. #priceless 

[hoosierhawk]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Gloinsk?. I said he was the best G in the draft.  Said it since April.

 

What I also said was, given the alternatives of Wynn, Ragnow, Hernadez, etc.  and extra draft picks, I don't think he can be that much better than the others plus what ever player we could have gotten. 

 

Its like another thread, where somebody is accusing Non-Bohner-Over-Nelson people of saying he was a wasted pick.

You have  make many, many snide comments regarding him so it's surprising you feel so high on him. How many times have you knocked CB for drafting him so high and now your are insinuating that a 4th round draft pick has made the difference in the OL. You just argue to argue.                                                                      

 

[esmort]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Nevermind.  Sorry for derailing the party.  Carry on.

 

You act like it's everyone else who are delusional on blue Kool-Aid and you are the only one who is seeing things clearly ... you are giving yourself too much credit.

 

Plenty of people don't agree with every decision Ballard has made, but they can be objective and don't feel the need to complain and take cheap/sarcastic shots at Ballard at every turn. (Or rush to Grigson's defense which is truly baffling )

[Superman]

21 hours ago, Trueman said:

Yeah, but what decisions , really? Everything that hasn't worked has been low-risk 1 year guys that didn't have cap implications. He's had escape routes on virtually every decision he's made. Which is really smart. 

 

The big one is McDaniels. I'm not killing him for that; I wanted McDaniels for over a year. But surely that qualifies as a decision that didn't work out. And it wasn't a low risk situation, either. He held out for a month to wait for his guy, then had to pick from the leftovers. Thankfully, Reich was still there so it all worked out, but that was a big whiff. 

 

Kamar Aiken, sticking with Tolzien (more on the coaches, but he made the decision not to sign another QB), cutting Robinson, his third and fourth round picks last year, etc. Not back breaking mistakes, but these are examples of decisions that didn't work out. That's not even controversial; every GM has some goofs.

 

Quote

As for not being active in free agency for OL , other than Norwell  ... who'd you really want? He drafted two big time guards , and likely mimicked the production with younger/cheaper (and possibly even better) players going forward. 

Our O-Line is already on it's way to being vastly better than it's been in years , so I'm not sure why you'd complain about not addressing it in free agency. ...Unless you wanted him to sign someone in FA so he could treat the draft differently. Which , again ... I don't get. I know you wanted Chubb , but I mean.. c'mon... 

 

How about doing better than Slauson and Howard, for starters? How about reliable depth? He waited two weeks to sign Slauson, and two months to sign Howard. I wanted a starter and a solid competitor from free agency. It wasn't Norwell or bust.

 

We're also being very premature on the line right now. I'm optimistic, but you're acting like we can take it to the bank. 

 

Quote

Right. And I believe that's what I'm looking at. 

 

We're 7 games into his second season, with a moderate shift in focus after the first season. How can you be looking at how his decisions play out over time when barely any time has passed?
 

Quote

Younger? Check
Cap flexibility? Check
Good drafting? Check
Good/measured FA? Check
Coaching? TBD , but it looks much better than what he inherited. 

 

It's not hard to get younger, especially when your older players are awful. Jones and Jackson were awful, Mathis retired, Adams was 35 and a FA, Walden was a FA, Trent Cole was a FA and terrible, Butler was a FA and pretty bad, Reitz retired... pretty much everyone over 30 was a no-brainer. The trouble with getting younger is acquiring players who can perform, not just getting rid of older players. I could have made the roster younger in two minutes, Thanos style.

 

He inherited cap flexibility. I don't credit him in that regard, as if he had to make serious moves to free up cap space.

 

Time will tell whether he's drafted well, and if he can draft well continually. I'm not knocking his drafting, just not praising it. It's too early, and he's already had some bad picks.

 

Measured FA? Yes. Good FA? No big complaints about the guys he's signed (although some have been bad, like Aiken, Howard, etc.), but I think he held back too much this offseason. I'm fine with his approach, but like I said, I think we needed a quality starter at OL, and I would have liked a better WR than Grant.
 

Quote

It's impossible for me to look at anything that hasn't transpired. There's obviously stages to roster construction/development. And in phase 1 (aka cleaning up Grigson's mess) .. he's done a really good job. Phase 2 , aka building/developing the young core (stacking drafts) is still in progress. 

 

Phase 1 is the easy part, honestly. Demolition is clear cut. It takes time to build a good roster, and to establish a winning culture. He is still working on both of those, and that's how you grade a GM over time.

 

I mean, Grigson came in and cut bait on a bunch of older, overpaid guys from the previous regime, and in Year 2 he had significant cap space to use in FA. That's easy. It's from Year 2 on that Grigson really showed himself to be a bad GM. That's when the team building started, and he couldn't do what needed to be done.

 

Like you, I'm bullish on Ballard. I bring up some of his less effective decisions, but it's not because I'm being critical. It's just because I think you're crowning him prematurely. 

[PeterBowman]

Wait till the Colts lose again and it'll be Ballard sucks etc.

[LucknessMonster12]

Let the record show that Ballard WAS in on Amari Cooper. A young player of serious need. He's not worth what the Cowboys gave up for him. But, he was active.

[Btown_Colt]

7 minutes ago, LucknessMonster12 said:

Let the record show that Ballard WAS in on Amari Cooper. A young player of serious need. He's not worth what the Cowboys gave up for him. But, he was active.

Can you show me the record?

[LucknessMonster12]

24 minutes ago, Btown_Colt said:

Can you show me the record?

League sources have reported the Colts were in it with Phi, and Dal. Look it up.

[Trueman]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

The big one is McDaniels. I'm not killing him for that; I wanted McDaniels for over a year. But surely that qualifies as a decision that didn't work out. And it wasn't a low risk situation, either. He held out for a month to wait for his guy, then had to pick from the leftovers. Thankfully, Reich was still there so it all worked out, but that was a big whiff. 

 

Yeah.... I'm not putting that on him. McDaniels pulled an unprecedented * move. There's really nothing else he could've done. The PR nightmare with the twitter announcement isn't really on him , imo. 

Honestly , if you were Ballard , what would you have done differently (without the benefit of hindsight)? There's just no way he could've seen that coming - Patriot or not. It could've been anyone that McDaniels pulled that sh!t on. It just happened to be us. 

Ballard's recovery was more than commendable as well. I learned a lot about CB during that time. 
 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

Kamar Aiken, sticking with Tolzien (more on the coaches, but he made the decision not to sign another QB), cutting Robinson, his third and fourth round picks last year, etc. Not back breaking mistakes, but these are examples of decisions that didn't work out. That's not even controversial; every GM has some goofs.

Aiken was a 1 year deal with no cap implications. When you put yourself in such a risk-free market , you're gunna miss. I don't consider that a mistake really. A Laron Landry signing is a mistake , to me.  Are we really nitpicking a guy for a 1 year prove it deal? Grant got the same deal and it's working out better. 

Tolzien? I mean.. he eventually got Brissett and we weren't going to do anything last year anyways. This seems like a reach. 

Patrick Robinson wasn't that good for us. He just wasn't . I dunno what you wanted Ballard to see. 

These aren't even "goofs" . These are so low on the "mistake scale" that they don't even register. Most GM's would kill to have goofs like these. 

I'm sure as time passes you'll have legit goofs to point out , but these are nothing. Truly. 

 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

How about doing better than Slauson and Howard, for starters? How about reliable depth? He waited two weeks to sign Slauson, and two months to sign Howard. I wanted a starter and a solid competitor from free agency. It wasn't Norwell or bust.

 

We're also being very premature on the line right now. I'm optimistic, but you're acting like we can take it to the bank. 

Slauson was good for us. What the hell was wrong with that signing? It was another risk-free move and it was an outstanding success until that brutal injury. 

Howard was another 1 year deal. Again, these moves have a high probability of not working out. He's shopping in a very selective/cheap market. Would you rather another Cherilus ? Because that's the next market you have to shop in. When you miss there, it's a problem. 

You wanted a starter in free agency. And he added Nelson and Smith who look to be cheaper long term solutions.  The line is clearly better and improving this season. What is the problem?
 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

We're also being very premature on the line right now. I'm optimistic, but you're acting like we can take it to the bank. 

No, no , no. Don't superimpose that on me. I'm confident it's heading the right direction -- yes. I still think we need to draft an OT high in next year's draft , though. It's not complete by any means. 

Is Smith performing better than you anticipated? He is for me. 

Regardless of how good the line becomes (or doesn't) , it's already better than previous years. Luck hasn't been sacked in two weeks. That's noteworthy, no?

There's no evidence that proves that signing a high-price FA would solve the problem. See Norwell in Jacksonville. Again, it's just judging Ballard for what you think would've been the best move , not for what actually was. 
 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

We're 7 games into his second season, with a moderate shift in focus after the first season. How can you be looking at how his decisions play out over time when barely any time has passed?

Because I'm judging the process in conjunction with the individual benefits/faults of each move. That was the whole point of the exercise. He's been getting crucified by the same people over and over for things that don't make any sense to me. To judge the guy solely on his W-L record instead of the individual moves and the thought process behind them is just beyond harsh. 
 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

It's not hard to get younger, especially when your older players are awful. Jones and Jackson were awful, Mathis retired, Adams was 35 and a FA, Walden was a FA, Trent Cole was a FA and terrible, Butler was a FA and pretty bad, Reitz retired... pretty much everyone over 30 was a no-brainer. The trouble with getting younger is acquiring players who can perform, not just getting rid of older players. I could have made the roster younger in two minutes, Thanos style.

Yeah. I don't think I credited him for cutting terrible Grigson acquisitions as if it was a stroke of genius. But, I think it's important to mention how much dead cap he took on , and how large of a collection of crap he inherited.

It wasn't hard to cut them , but they certainly prevented a cleaner rebuild. Ballard only had 18 million after obliterating the roster and 3 dead Grigson drafts to work with. 

What can he honestly do with 18 million and a total lack of young talent? Nothing. 

Context is everything. And becoming young was necessary, as was being extremely prudent. If he missed Cherilus style , it would've been an issue. Hence all the low-risk bargain hunting. 
 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

He inherited cap flexibility. I don't credit him in that regard, as if he had to make serious moves to free up cap space.

What's your definition of flexibility? Because, when it was all said and done , after all those cuts/retirements/trades , he still only generated 10 more million of cap space from 2016-- that's it. 

It wasn't cap hell , and but it wasn't 50 million in space and a clean slate to work with. A decent amount of cap space doesn't equate to flexibility when you have a barren roster. Three above average FA contracts , and poof , it's gone. A Cherilus , Landry  and Cole, if you will. 

If he had inherited an established young core + 18 million (which is what he ended up with) , then sure, that's flexibility. 
 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

Time will tell whether he's drafted well, and if he can draft well continually. I'm not knocking his drafting, just not praising it. It's too early, and he's already had some bad picks.

A 3rd rounder and a 4th rounder are the only "bad" picks I can think of. And when you consider context (aka Grigson's staff , Pagano HC) , I think it's pretty forgivable. The best GM's in the league miss in those rounds consistently and he didn't even have his own guys in place. 

"Bad picks" to me are Werner and Dorsett. 

I get you're just trying to be measured, and I completely understand that , but what you're choosing to question Ballard on is supremely harsh , imo. These "mistakes" are nothing. 
 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

Measured FA? Yes. Good FA? No big complaints about the guys he's signed (although some have been bad, like Aiken, Howard, etc.), but I think he held back too much this offseason. I'm fine with his approach, but like I said, I think we needed a quality starter at OL, and I would have liked a better WR than Grant.

Yes, good. You can only judge a guy on who he has signed. Considering the market he's shopping at (the bargain bin) , to get as much value as he has is impressive. He routinely picks up unheralded no name guys and extracts fantastic value from them. 

People can act like that's an easy thing to do , but it isn't. He clearly has a keen eye for talent. A large majority of teams take on bad money and regret it. In fact, they're perpetually mired in mediocrity because of it. (see Miami)

You wanted a starter at OL , and he drafted them instead. Neither is a certainty for success (though Nelson is as close as it gets) but one option certainly doesn't hurt your cap situation like the other. 

“There is a delicate balance between being aggressive and being decisive but also being responsible, You can always recover from the player you didn’t sign; you can’t recover from the player you signed at the wrong price.”

 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

Phase 1 is the easy part, honestly. Demolition is clear cut. It takes time to build a good roster, and to establish a winning culture. He is still working on both of those, and that's how you grade a GM over time.

Agreed. The absolute perfect time to judge a GM is when you've given him appropriate time. 

But again, that doesn't mean I can't admire what he's done thus far if I look at each individual move. Which is all the exercise was. 

I suppose I could say "5-17" and complain he didn't sign overpriced WR's for the hope of winning a couple more regular season games like a certain section of this forum. 
 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

I mean, Grigson came in and cut bait on a bunch of older, overpaid guys from the previous regime, and in Year 2 he had significant cap space to use in FA. That's easy. It's from Year 2 on that Grigson really showed himself to be a bad GM. That's when the team building started, and he couldn't do what needed to be done.

 

Except once Grigson created the space , he spent it -- terribly. Which was the big mistake and it's exactly why I'm praising Ballard for doing the opposite. 

You think it's premature praise , and  I think it's a clear contrast worth mentioning. 
 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

Like you, I'm bullish on Ballard. I bring up some of his less effective decisions, but it's not because I'm being critical. It's just because I think you're crowning him prematurely. 

Crowning him? C'mon man. I broke down each roster move and said if I liked it or I didn't. I happen to like a lot more than I don't. That's it. It could change in the future. 

I didn't say he's a destined hall of famer. 
 

[Coffeedrinker]

13 hours ago, DougDew said:

I'm agreeing with you. 

 

Here's my point.

 

I read comments about the oline being fixed.  By Ballard.  And how bad Haeg, Clark and Good are........picks by Grigson. 

 

Oftentimes, the tone is about aligning oline play with GMs.

 

Then they say how much the oline is better with AC.

 

And they conveniently forget about Kelly.

 

So what should happen is this:

 

Thank Ballard, Grigson, and Polian because they built the oline we have.   Ballard replaced Mewhort with Smith.  A push.

 

He's added 2 players, not 5 or even 4.  One was pick #6, no surprise he's good.  And the other is a waiver pickup from being 3rd in line, a vet player who has more talent than our marginal guys.

 

So, what is impressive?

 

I should probably quit posting but to the bolded and underlined.

 

1.  I'm saying Ballard is impressive yet, I was jsut responding to what, at first, I thought was you mistaking one player for another.  that being said, I do like the direction Ballard is taking the team.

 

2.  He (Ballard) has actually added 4 players to the line (Nelson, Smith, Glowinski and Slausen).  And all of them have played well when called upon, and that is impressive.  And that is all the GM can do is provide players that meet the requirements the coaches have laid out for him.  It's not up to Ballard to start Smith at RT, or start Haeg instead of Smith.  And that is something Grigson did not do.  He found some good players but he did not do a good job of finding those 2nd and 3rd tier guys that could come in and play well for short periods of time.  Ballard has already shown he can do that.

 

if you want to get technical, Ballard replaced Mewhort with Nelson (upgrade), Vuj with Glowinski (upgrade), And the right side rotation of Haeg, Clark and Good with Slausen and Smith (Upgrade, though I still like Good).

 

So back to your original point that all Ballard did was replace one guy on the line... well that's just not an accurate statement.

[#12.]

I do like most everything he's done, but it's all about the bottom line.  Have to start winning games.  

 

It's early, obviously, but the 2018 offseason might end up being one of our best.  You already have seven players contributing from the draft, and still have yet to see Lewis, Cain and Fountain.  You hit on Ebron.  Autry played well - just needs to get healthy.  Even the castoff-types are players - Ward, Mitchell and Muhammad 

[Superman]

21 hours ago, Trueman said:

Yeah.... I'm not putting that on him. McDaniels pulled an unprecedented * move. There's really nothing else he could've done. The PR nightmare with the twitter announcement isn't really on him , imo. 

 

Not the point. I said he made decisions that didn't work out. This is a decision that didn't work out. So are the others I mentioned. I'm not burying Ballard for it. But like you, I was very impressed with Ballard's response to the whole fiasco.

 

Quote

Patrick Robinson wasn't that good for us. He just wasn't . I dunno what you wanted Ballard to see. 

 

I'm on record as wanting to keep Robinson. He was hurt most of 2016, and I wanted to see him compete for a spot on the roster. He went to the Eagles and had a great season. To be fair, I also wanted to get rid of Melvin, who turned out being a lot better last season than I thought he would.
 

Quote

Slauson was good for us. What the hell was wrong with that signing? It was another risk-free move and it was an outstanding success until that brutal injury. 

 

Slauson wasn't an outstanding success at all. He was a decent depth/competition signing who played okay, but not particularly well. And now he's on IR. 

 

This is an example of what I'm saying. I think you're overselling some of Ballard's moves.

 

Quote

Howard was another 1 year deal. Again, these moves have a high probability of not working out. He's shopping in a very selective/cheap market. Would you rather another Cherilus ? Because that's the next market you have to shop in. When you miss there, it's a problem. 

 

Come on. The choice wasn't Howard or commit $15m to a guy with a chronic knee condition. There were other players in FA that were available in March. Ballard waited until May, after the compensatory period ended, and signed a third tier FA. And guaranteed him $1.3m, and he didn't make it out of camp.

 

The Cowboys signed Cameron Fleming as their backup swing tackle and gave him one year, $2.5m. We signed Howard for $4.25m. Fleming was in my offseason mock, which is why I'm using him as an example of an option other than Howard. There were others that weren't Cherilus-style risks.

 

Quote

Is Smith performing better than you anticipated? He is for me. 

 

Smith has barely got on the field. I'm excited about what he might do. 
 

Quote

Regardless of how good the line becomes (or doesn't) , it's already better than previous years. Luck hasn't been sacked in two weeks. That's noteworthy, no?

 

Have you noticed that the QB is getting rid of the ball way faster than he has at any point in his career? That's noteworthy, right?
 

Quote

There's no evidence that proves that signing a high-price FA would solve the problem. See Norwell in Jacksonville. Again, it's just judging Ballard for what you think would've been the best move , not for what actually was. 

 

I didn't say a high priced FA, nor did I say one player would have solved the problem. Yes, I wanted Norwell, and no, I'm not convinced that his performance through seven games is proof that he wouldn't have been a good signing. The Jags have a lot problems on offense.
 

Quote

It wasn't hard to cut them , but they certainly prevented a cleaner rebuild. Ballard only had 18 million after obliterating the roster and 3 dead Grigson drafts to work with. 

 

...

 

What's your definition of flexibility? Because, when it was all said and done , after all those cuts/retirements/trades , he still only generated 10 more million of cap space from 2016-- that's it. 

It wasn't cap hell , and but it wasn't 50 million in space and a clean slate to work with. A decent amount of cap space doesn't equate to flexibility when you have a barren roster. Three above average FA contracts , and poof , it's gone. A Cherilus , Landry  and Cole, if you will. 

If he had inherited an established young core + 18 million (which is what he ended up with) , then sure, that's flexibility. 

 

Where did you get that from? It's wrong. The Colts had over $50m in cap space before Ballard touched the roster. By the time he got rid of Jones and Robinson, it was more like $60m. The Colts actually rolled forward about $17m from 2017 to 2018. The cap wasn't a problem when Ballard took over. That's the one thing Grigson didn't mess up.
 

I'm weary of the point by point, this could go on all day.

 

Again, my point is that there's a lot of work to do, and it's too early to judge Ballard, either way. People saying "6-17" and such are being ridiculous. People saying the 2017 draft was awful are being ridiculous. People saying he didn't have to clean up Grigson's mess are being ridiculous. Our guy threeflight is being ridiculous.

 

But just like it's too early to write off a draft or judge a GM who is turning the roster over, it's too early, IMO, to claim that the job is done. Your posts read like you think the job is done, especially on the OL. You said Ballard looks like an elite evaluator, and that's just way above where I would go with it. You aren't calling him a HOFer, but you're talking about him like he is.

 

Again, I'm not being critical of him. I'm just saying that a) he hasn't been perfect, and b) we won't know how good he actually is until more time passes.

 

And since we keep bringing up Grigson, it's good to remember that at this point in his Colts tenure, he was the reigning GM of the Year, cobbled together a team that went 11-5 with $40m dead cap space and a rookie QB, and everyone thought he had just robbed the Browns of the next great NFL RB. 

 

I'm seriously all about Ballard. I'm just saying let's pump the brakes and actually evaluate him fairly.

[Moosejawcolt]

On 10/22/2018 at 5:44 PM, DougDew said:

Nevermind.  Sorry for derailing the party.  Carry on.

I get wat u r saying.  I like Ballard and I like the direction of this team.  However this rebuild is totally on him.....no excuses if it fails.  Yes, he may have not  had a lot of talent. But....but.....he had wat no other rebuilding team has had......a generational talent in a now healthy Luck.    U take out Luck and insert Brisett in our 1st  7 games and I am not sure we r on the Ballard band wagon. Luck's health and comeback have probably accelerated this rebuild by years.  Let's just enjoy the ride and by the end of the year , we will probably know where we r at and wat direction we need to go in the draft.  Let's also not forget.......he hired McDaniels a move that could have been devastating for this team.  I do think Ballard learns from his mistakes  and is flexible.  I like that about him and seems like a genuine person. 

[Trueman]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

Slauson wasn't an outstanding success at all. He was a decent depth/competition signing who played okay, but not particularly well. And now he's on IR. 

 

This is an example of what I'm saying. I think you're overselling some of Ballard's moves.

What? He was the 26th ranked guard by PFF and we got him for 1 year 2.5 million.

That is terrific value,  I'm sorry.  I'm too lazy to do the research , but I'm almost certain he'd rank near the top of value for cost in recent FA OL. 

It's a shame he got hurt , but whilst he was playing, he was playing well above that contract. 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

Come on. The choice wasn't Howard or commit $15m to a guy with a chronic knee condition. There were other players in FA that were available in March. Ballard waited until May, after the compensatory period ended, and signed a third tier FA. And guaranteed him $1.3m, and he didn't make it out of camp.

 

The Cowboys signed Cameron Fleming as their backup swing tackle and gave him one year, $2.5m. We signed Howard for $4.25m. Fleming was in my offseason mock, which is why I'm using him as an example of an option other than Howard. There were others that weren't Cherilus-style risks.

Sure , that might've been an exaggerated counter example , but you know what I'm getting at. The 1 year prove it market is what it is. 

I mean, look at this list :

http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2018OT.php

Who do you think he should've gone for? It's loaded with awful contracts and terrible players. Fleming is really the only guy you could make a legit case for , so kudos to you for calling that. But it's only one guy and who knows if Ballard pursued him. I can't recall hearing /reading anything. That said, it's not like the market was overflowing with options.

 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

Have you noticed that the QB is getting rid of the ball way faster than he has at any point in his career? That's noteworthy, right?
 

100% . As is our best running performance in ages against Buffalo. Which is a result of an improving line.

I can't remember the last time I've seen our line play this well , even if the sample size is small. Call it premature if you'd like , but I know you see it too.

OL's don't have dominant fluke performances against top defenses. It's trending upwards at the very least. 

 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

Where did you get that from? It's wrong. The Colts had over $50m in cap space before Ballard touched the roster. By the time he got rid of Jones and Robinson, it was more like $60m. The Colts actually rolled forward about $17m from 2017 to 2018. The cap wasn't a problem when Ballard took over. That's the one thing Grigson didn't mess up.

My mistake. You are correct. I thought the cap penalties were much higher after cutting Davis, Langford , Jackson et al. Perhaps I was looking at the wrong month. 
 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

I'm weary of the point by point, this could go on all day.

 

Haha , I know. I'm sorry to come across argumentative. It's essentially an agreement of sorts , but I don't think I'm being overly positive. I'm looking at each individual move and trying to see it through Ballard's eyes within the context of the moment/situation.
 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

But just like it's too early to write off a draft or judge a GM who is turning the roster over, it's too early, IMO, to claim that the job is done. Your posts read like you think the job is done, especially on the OL. You said Ballard looks like an elite evaluator, and that's just way above where I would go with it. You aren't calling him a HOFer, but you're talking about him like he is.

No, it's not even close to being done. If you feel my posts conveying that , then I'll try to do better next time. We still have plenty of holes in the roster , and we haven't actually won yet. I understand all of that.

As for the OL, I've stated I think we need at least another OT in next year's draft a million times on this board , so I dunno why you think I believe it's completed. I just think it's way better than it has been. I don't think it's the 2016 Cowboys' OL.

Ballard does look like an elite evaluator to me and I stand by that. I think you're essentially putting me on the opposite extreme of threeflight , but I can assure you I'm not there. I'm more than willing to criticize mistakes , I'm just not seeing them to the same extent you are. McDaniels and missed 1 year prove it deals aren't really enough for me to judge a guy.

The fact is , Ballard really hasn't put his balls on the table yet (specifically in FA). Once he does , he'll make himself more susceptible to criticism. 
 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

Again, I'm not being critical of him. I'm just saying that a) he hasn't been perfect, and b) we won't know how good he actually is until more time passes.

100% agreed. 
 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

And since we keep bringing up Grigson, it's good to remember that at this point in his Colts tenure, he was the reigning GM of the Year, cobbled together a team that went 11-5 with $40m dead cap space and a rookie QB, and everyone thought he had just robbed the Browns of the next great NFL RB. 

Yeah, I guess. I wasn't nearly as convinced by Grigson , though. It looked like an abnormally good QB carrying a team in a weak division to me.  And I for one , was not  happy about the Richardson deal. Not because I knew he was a colossal bust , but because I didn't think our roster was remotely good enough to be trading 1sts for RB's.  (That, and Jim Brown's comments on him)
 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

I'm seriously all about Ballard. I'm just saying let's pump the brakes and actually evaluate him fairly.

Yeah , I guess this is where we truly disagree. I think I am being fair. Once he royally messes up , I'll be the first to call him out on it. 

Either way, as you said , this could go on for days . I appreciate you taking the time to indulge me. 
 

[Crunked]

Not directed at the OP, but just to the forum in general......I was just diagnosed with Colts fan whiplash, also known as CFW.......from the Fire Ballard, to Ballard is a Genius and everything in between......threads, can we please pick a single emotion and stick with it despite the weekly outcome lol.......(This post was made for the purposes of poking fun at all of us Colt fans, please use only as directed, some may experience dizziness or shortness of breath after reading this post, please consult a physician)

[ColtStrong2013]

On 10/22/2018 at 6:20 PM, DougDew said:

Sure, but it's actually pretty easy for a GM to correct since he had the important, expensive pieces and cap space to fill in the rest.  

 

If he wants to take time to build through the draft, that's fine.  It's probably better.  But that's not due to anything he inherited.  That philosophy is on him.

He didn't have the important pieces... He had a quarterback, a wide receiver, a center and a left tackle.... 

 

The important pieces were neglected every single year in the draft under Grigson. He bought the teams that he failed miserably to draft properly. Look at all the teams that try to buy teams in this league. IT DOESNT WORK. 

 

Grigson was like having a 500 piece puzzle and losing several pieces every time you worked on it... When it all comes together, and you only have 300 pieces, it isn't even close to being a finished product. Furthermore, if you try to buy replacement pieces, they don't fit properly and it ends up being a puzzle that needs reworked completely. 

 

Ballard has a vision and a process to the vision. Hold off until the end of the season to reserve your feelings on him and this young team. If you can't see the progress we have made already this season, you are blind. I have never been more optimistic after watching us run the ball and absolutely crush the soul of a good Bills defense Sunday. Our schedule is favorable. We CAN string 8 wins of 9 games left. Let's see where this team takes us. 

[Superman]

21 hours ago, Trueman said:

What? He was the 26th ranked guard by PFF and we got him for 1 year 2.5 million.

That is terrific value,  I'm sorry.  I'm too lazy to do the research , but I'm almost certain he'd rank near the top of value for cost in recent FA OL. 

It's a shame he got hurt , but whilst he was playing, he was playing well above that contract. 

 

Wanted to respond to this, because I wasn't terribly impressed with Slauson's play. I think he was very average, and that's fine for a stop gap veteran on a reasonable contract. It's not a bad signing, I just wasn't as taken with Slauson as others were. I think Ballard wanted to do better than Slauson, based on his interest in Jensen, reported interest in Norwell, etc. The Chargers re-signed Schofield, who is five years younger than Slauson, for the same yearly average. I would have preferred the younger player, and he's having a pretty good year from what I've seen.

 

Again, I've never complained about signing Slauson. Just saying I wouldn't come close to calling it an outstanding success.

 

We do agree that things are pointed in the right direction. I think Ballard has a good handle on things, his commitment to his strategy shows how convinced he is that it's the right approach long term, and he has already probably faced the toughest situation he'll deal with as a GM with the McDaniels nonsense (on heels of Edwin Jackson's death, no less), and he handled that as well as anyone could have, IMO. Doesn't hurt that he wound up with Reich, a pretty good consolation prize.

 

Good talk. I definitely don't view you as the anti threeflight.

[Superman]

15 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

The important pieces were neglected every single year in the draft under Grigson.

 

They weren't neglected, he just wasn't a good drafter. Not sure which is worse.

[NewColtsFan]

On 10/22/2018 at 7:01 PM, LucknessMonster12 said:

Let the record show that Ballard WAS in on Amari Cooper. A young player of serious need. He's not worth what the Cowboys gave up for him. But, he was active.

 

How “in” do you think Ballard was?

 

Odds are he made a phone call...   asked what it would take to make a deal and quickly lost interest.

 

If Ballard wanted Cooper he could have made it happen.    He didn’t.   Nit sure I’d read much more than that into his interest...

 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

How “in” do you think Ballard was?

 

Odds are he made a phone call...   asked what it would take to make a deal and quickly lost interest.

 

If Ballard wanted Cooper he could have made it happen.    He didn’t.   Nit sure I’d read much more than that into his interest...

 

 

I’d guess he offered a 2nd, but Dallas offered a 1st, & that was that.

[Peterk2011]

On 10/24/2018 at 4:27 AM, Superman said:

Again, I'm not being critical of him. I'm just saying that a) he hasn't been perfect, and b) we won't know how good he actually is until more time passes.

...

I'm seriously all about Ballard. I'm just saying let's pump the brakes and actually evaluate him fairly.

 

Are you playing devil's advocate Superman?  I mean, seriously, what you do  - opposite to what you usually do - is indeed nitpicking minor mistakes and call it "fair evaluation". Well, its not fair. Yes, he did sign Howard who was a failure. And yes, maybe Slauson was only a mediocre/serviceable addition, who got injured so we can call this kinda failure if we want. But this is not evaluation, this is just nicpicking decisions individually. The "fair evaluation" is to step back, identify the problem, and evaluate the whole "fixing" process (every move as a whole) and see the result. The problem was not player A or player B. The problem was a bad and thin oline, and the evaluation is to judge the whole process - all moves that Ballard did, including FA and draft signings as a whole - which lead to the solution (or to the failure if he failed). He spent some resources - doesn't matter if it's signing pricey free agents or drafting high both are spending available resources - on the problem, and everything so far indicates that he more than less solved the problem. The price was hefty - an 1/6 and an early second round is hefty -, but we already see the result, despite some difficulties - our left tackle got hurt, three men are already on the IR, the fourth has been a healthy scratch, and lost his brother so he missed time. No matter how "fairly" I try to evaluate this, the minimum I can say is Ballard did fairly well. But I tend to lean forward to call it a huge success.

 

This is about the oline. We can go further, picking an other problematic area, for example pass rush, where we were and where we are at now, how much resources he spent, and what is the result as of now. And what I see is another very well done job. Last year's non existent passrush turned into a very admirable production (top 5 in sacks, pressures per play, tackles for loss, total pressures). And Ballard could do this with spending relatively moderate amount of resources. (I consider two second round picks and a 7 million acquisition as moderate compared to the extent of the problem.) I think this is another area of success.

 

I won't go further. Obviously, there are still areas to fix (secondary, receiving corps), and yes, some of them Ballard had opportunities to fix, but missed / delayed, but putting all things together, what he has done so far is imo nothing less but great job. He made mistakes here and there (Howard, etc.), but comparing them to the long list of his good decisions - from signing Autry,  Ebron, to keeping Hunt over Simon, then lately acquiring quys like Ward, Mitchell - AFC def. player of the week signed from the street, good gosh -, etc., etc., the negatives are hardly comparable to the positives.

 

Can Ballard get on a downhill route? Yes, he can. Can he end up another Grigson? I doubt so, but it's a possibility. But it does not change the fact, that according to any "fair evaluation", so far, Ballard has done a great job. Most analysts - local or national - agree on this.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Are you playing devil's advocate Superman?  I mean, seriously, what you do  - opposite to what you usually do - is indeed nitpicking minor mistakes and call it "fair evaluation". Well, its not fair.

 

No. What tends to happen over protracted point by point discussions is the opposing sides appear to be further apart because context gets lost. 

 

My point is that it's too early to fairly evaluate Ballard's work. I like what he's done and his approach, for the most part, but he also has some misses, which is reasonable. Big picture, I'll be pleased with him when the Colts have a strong roster with some depth and can compete every season. 

[Barry Sears]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

No. What tends to happen over protracted point by point discussions is the opposing sides appear to be further apart because context gets lost. 

 

My point is that it's too early to fairly evaluate Ballard's work. I like what he's done and his approach, for the most part, but he also has some misses, which is reasonable. Big picture, I'll be pleased with him when the Colts have a strong roster with some depth and can compete every season. 

 

you mean we have to be patient??? 

[richard pallo]

12 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

How “in” do you think Ballard was?

 

Odds are he made a phone call...   asked what it would take to make a deal and quickly lost interest.

 

If Ballard wanted Cooper he could have made it happen.    He didn’t.   Nit sure I’d read much more than that into his interest...

 

Wrong.  He was in.  But not for a 1st.  We all know that.  Once a 1st. was offered case closed.  If no 1st. was offered we have no way of knowing what could have happened.  It never got that far.  I don't think a good GM would lose interest just because of an asking price and walk away.  If interested you always keep the door open and keep talking.  Have you ever walked into a car dealer, put in an offer , have it rejected and walk out?  Two days later they call you and said they would take it.  Same concept.  Circumstances change daily.  It doesn't always work out in your favor of course.  But everyone should keep the door open until a deal is made. 

[Jason_]

1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

Wrong.  

 

How can you possibly say NCF is wrong when none of us have any idea of what conversations actually took place?

[richard pallo]

1 minute ago, J@son said:

 

How can you possibly say NCF is wrong when none of us have any idea of what conversations actually took place?

Exactly.  For the same reason he said he was out after he heard the asking price.  He doesn't know either.

[Jason_]

2 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Exactly.  For the same reason he said he was out after he heard the asking price.  He doesn't know either.

 

NCF said, 

 

Quote

Odds are he made a phone call...   asked what it would take to make a deal and quickly lost interest.

 

Do you know what "Odds are" means?  It means he doesn't know for sure, but in his opinion that's probably what happened.  So...IDK...relax?  Maybe?

[NewColtsFan]

33 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Wrong.  He was in.  But not for a 1st.  We all know that.  Once a 1st. was offered case closed.  If no 1st. was offered we have no way of knowing what could have happened.  It never got that far.  I don't think a good GM would lose interest just because of an asking price and walk away.  If interested you always keep the door open and keep talking.  Have you ever walked into a car dealer, put in an offer , have it rejected and walk out?  Two days later they call you and said they would take it.  Same concept.  Circumstances change daily.  It doesn't always work out in your favor of course.  But everyone should keep the door open until a deal is made. 

Wrong?

 

What was I wrong about?

 

You have no way of knowing— none.

 

You have nothing but opinion and that’s based on your desire for Ballard to make a trade.    You’ve been in on the Colts going after every big name player and YOU’VE been wrong on every one.

 

You've ignored every sign that Ballard has sent out.   That he’s building through the draft, and not trading his draft picks.    You’re the leading proponent on the site for Ballard to make a splash deal.  No one has posted more.   So far, you’ve been wrong every time.   At least you’re consistent.

 

You’re likely going to get your wish...  someday.   But that someday does not appear to be this year.   And it may not even be next year.   But it will happen — someday.

 

[Myles]

When Ballard turned the 3rd pick into Nelson, Smith, Turay and Wilkens,  I was sold.   We even have another 2nd rounder next year from that trade.

[Peterk2011]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

No. What tends to happen over protracted point by point discussions is the opposing sides appear to be further apart because context gets lost. 

 

My point is that it's too early to fairly evaluate Ballard's work. I like what he's done and his approach, for the most part, but he also has some misses, which is reasonable. Big picture, I'll be pleased with him when the Colts have a strong roster with some depth and can compete every season. 

 

What "too early" means? Is it 1 year? Is it 2 years? Is it 3? Or 4? Or does it depend on something else? Do we have a consensus about when it is "not too early"?

 

I think evaluating someone's job is a repeating process. You do it frequently, and repeatedly. There is no "too early", you do it from the very begining and it never ends. Of course, a fair evaluation requires that you exclude those moves/actions, of which you can't (yet) fairly judge. But Ballard has done plenty already, which we can already judge, because we know the result. So far, positive moves way outnumber the negatives. I think he has done a great job so far.

 

We will judge him next month again, then the next month, and the next year, and so on. We won't stop judging him until he is the Colts GM. The result may or may not change.

[NDcolt]

CB did not forecast AC, MM & JD missing the first 5 games due to injury but with that said, using the cap on a legit #2 or #1 wr this team could be 5-2 easily.  I get it he had no idea his brilliant draft would expedite the Colts back to revelance but put those Colt colored glasses on, I mean you have Andrew freakin Luck which is where I disagree with the FO choice to lay down in 2018.  With all that said, this Colts TEAM is charging hard, reminds me of 2017 Chargers, no pun!  WILL Ballard make a move to go all in B4 trade deadline?  This TEAM is 1-2 moves talent wise to be reckon with in 2018, YES that includes the Rams/Chiefs!  Andrew FREAKIN Luck, how can you strum rebuild with this General leading the way, I know I didn’t buy in.

 

 

[southwest1]

On 10/22/2018 at 8:18 AM, lollygagger8 said:

Ballard's vision for the long term is second to none. He's going to build this team back into a perennial contender.

 

People that are saying he's bad just refuse to listen. Ballard's been upfront about his motives, and is doing exactly what he said he was going to do from the beginning. Him and Irsay have both commented that they are ok with a couple of years to rebuild to make it a long term successful franchise.

You said essentially what I was gonna say probably better than I would have said it Lolly. In one word: Consistency or directness if you prefer. What you see is what you get.

 

What I loved best is this: When he was at that press conference & said "The rivalry is back on" regarding Josh McDaniels decision to revoke our city as the next HC, here's what he meant: Your refusal to come to INDY won't crush us & even though the Pats/Colts rivalry isn't competitive right now; it will be eventually & there will come a time when you will regret rejecting our organization. Enough said.

 

What's that slogan? Of yes, I can forgive, but I never forget.  Chris has a quiet confidence about him that fosters loyalty on a grand scale.