The Official Ballard IS Impressing Me Thread

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

What difference does it make?  Ballard is always busy looking for ways to improve the team.  We may not sign or trade for players who some think we should but Ballard is doing it his way. He is doing exactly as he said he was going to do.  He has Irsay's backing and I for one am glad.

Okay.  I change my answer.  Not a UDFA.  The guy who was waived from the Seahawks allowed us to get our 1st 100 yard rusher in two seasons.

 

I didn't realize trying to improve the team made Ballard so special.  Its nice to see that our 3rd ranked GM's way is to put in a claim for a player while the GMs ranked 4 to 32 wouldn't have known that.  I'm impressed now. 

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, masterlock said:

Yes and no. He articulated his approach to team-building and overall philosophy. But that alone doesn't explain all the moves he's made. We're left to connect the dots in many cases.

The dots are not hard to connect at all if you have been listening to him.

Injuries have played a huge part in hampering the improvement and have to be taken into consideration.  Just because he hasn't done what some fans said he should do makes no difference.

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Okay.  I change my answer.  Not a UDFA.  The guy who was waived from the Seahawks allowed us to get our 1st 100 yard rusher in two seasons.

 

I didn't realize trying to improve the team made Ballard so special.  Its nice to see that our 3rd ranked GM's way is to put in a claim for a player while the GMs ranked 4 to 32 wouldn't have known that.  I'm impressed now. 

Throwing sarcastic comments around just makes you seem petty. 

[masterlock]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

The dots are not hard to connect at all if you have been listening to him.

Injuries have played a huge part in hampering the improvement and have to be taken into consideration.  Just because he hasn't done what some fans said he should do makes no difference.

I guess I didn't realize that releasing talented, affordable players was part of this plan--e.g., Greg Walden, Rashan Melvin, John Hankins, John Simon.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Throwing sarcastic comments around just makes you seem petty. 

nevermind

 

[DougDew]

I'm glad Ballard is smart enough to claim 4th round talent like Glow to see if he is a better G than 5th round talent Haeg and 7th round talent Good.  Pure genius.

[jvan1973]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'm glad Ballard is smart enough to claim 4th round talent like Glow to see if he is a better G than 5th round talent Haeg and 7th round talent Good.  Pure genius.

The Seahawks released him for a reason.   Apparently Ballard is smarter than their gm

[crazycolt1]

8 minutes ago, masterlock said:

I guess I didn't realize that releasing talented, affordable players was part of this plan--e.g., Greg Walden, Rashan Melvin, John Hankins, John Simon.

 

We were just discussing scheme but you seemed to have not been paying attention.

It's Eric Walden and he is not signed with another team

Rasheed Melvin has 1 pick and 2 tackles with the Raiders

John Hankins has 1 tackle with the Raiders.

John Simon has played in 2 games for the Patriots and has 1 sack and 3 tackles. Plus he fits their scheme.

Yes these guys are blowing up the league since being cut here.

[crazycolt1]

19 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'm glad Ballard is smart enough to claim 4th round talent like Glow to see if he is a better G than 5th round talent Haeg and 7th round talent Good.  Pure genius.

Sarcasm fits you so well.  That is what you seem to fall on when your comments are not taken serious.

[Myles]

25 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'm glad Ballard is smart enough to claim 4th round talent like Glow to see if he is a better G than 5th round talent Haeg and 7th round talent Good.  Pure genius.

You resorting to snide comments since you have been proved to be wrong, again.  

 

Grigson would have skipped on Glow and signed Jake Long to a huge deal.  

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

Sarcasm fits you so well.  That is what you seem to fall on when your comments are not taken serious.

Its possible to make a serious point through sarcasm.

 

I assume Glowinski is at least slightly more talented than either Haeg or Good, considering he was a 4th and they were a 5th and a 7th.

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Its possible to make a serious point through sarcasm.

 

I assume Glowinski is at least slightly more talented than either Haeg or Good, considering he was a 4th and they were a 5th and a 7th.

Where they were drafted at makes no difference so why even make it a point?

 

[DougDew]

Just now, Myles said:

You resorting to snide comments since you have been proved to be wrong, again.  

 

Grigson would have skipped on Glow and signed Jake Long to a huge deal.  

Wrong about what?  That we were third in claim order and that Haeg was drafted in the 5th and Good the 7th?

 

I don't care about Grigson. 

 

But from a control experiment standpoint (for those who will want to compare).  It may have been nice to see him not saddled with the bad coach and outdated schemes insisted by Irsay.  But I don't know if he would have been able to go 3-13 and 2-5 with the freedom that Ballard has had.

[DougDew]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

Where they were drafted at makes no difference so why even make it a point?

 

So what does make a difference when comparing the three Gs?  And what did Ballard know that nobody else did?

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Wrong about what?  That we were third in claim order and that Haeg was drafted in the 5th and Good the 7th?

 

I don't care about Grigson. 

 

But from a control experiment standpoint (for those who will want to compare).  It may have been nice to see him not saddled with the bad coach and outdated schemes insisted by Irsay.  But I don't know if he would have been able to go 3-13 and 2-5 with the freedom that Ballard has had.

I was once a Grigson fan. But the reality of how bad he ended up was something I had to learn myself. Was Pagano really that bad? How can any head coach be successful with the crap players he was saddled with from Grigson.

Now you are just arguing and throwing sarcastic comments out because you have nothing of substance to bring to the table.

[jvan1973]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Its possible to make a serious point through sarcasm.

 

I assume Glowinski is at least slightly more talented than either Haeg or Good, considering he was a 4th and they were a 5th and a 7th.

Rg3 was drafted 2nd overall.   Is he better than Brady?

[Myles]

Ballard has managed to do what Grigson could not do.  Put a good O-line on the field.   Nice job Ballard!!

A good O-line improves the passing game, the running game and I would argue the defense and coaching.  

 

 

[DougDew]

30 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I was once a Grigson fan. But the reality of how bad he ended up was something I had to learn myself. Was Pagano really that bad? How can any head coach be successful with the crap players he was saddled with from Grigson.

Now you are just arguing and throwing sarcastic comments out because you have nothing of substance to bring to the table.

Whatever. The blind animus towards Grigson still lingers, and his worse record was 8-8.  People are making up stuff somewhere along the line.

 

I didn't care much for Grigs/Pagano after the Pep season.  I thought the whole front office was lost when it came to O, and Chud never looked any more innovative.  But I do know it was impossible for any GM to fire Pags/Chud, since they were advancing to the playoffs deeper each year. 

 

I'm not a fan of any GM.  Never will be. I say I like them more when they choose the right O and D schemes.  

 

 

[Coffeedrinker]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Okay, he wasn't a UDFA, just waived from the Seahawks. 

 

I assume he was successfully claimed due to us being 3-13 last year and third in priority. 

 

Not sure he'd be here if we had a good enough record to make it to the playoffs last year, but you never know.

I don't understand the meaning of this post.  From your previous posts in this thread it appeared you were confusing Glowinski and Boehm (although Biehm was also a 4th round draft pick).  If you were just trying to use it as another way to knock Ballard, then I misunderstood.

[Coffeedrinker]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Whatever. The blind animus towards Grigson still lingers, and his worse record was 8-8.  People are making up stuff somewhere along the line.

 

I didn't care much for Grigs/Pagano after the Pep season.  I thought the whole front office was lost when it came to O, and Chud never looked any more innovative.  But I do know it was impossible for any GM to fire Pags/Chud, since they were advancing to the playoffs deeper each year. 

 

I'm not a fan of any GM.  Never will be. I say I like them more when they choose the right O and D schemes.  

 

 

The Colts have not gone to the playoffs since they got rid of Hamilton.  The Colts were last in the playoffs in 2014, the Colts fired Hamilton Nov of 2015.

[Cynjin]

39 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Wrong about what?  That we were third in claim order and that Haeg was drafted in the 5th and Good the 7th?

 

I don't care about Grigson. 

 

But from a control experiment standpoint (for those who will want to compare).  It may have been nice to see him not saddled with the bad coach and outdated schemes insisted by Irsay.  But I don't know if he would have been able to go 3-13 and 2-5 with the freedom that Ballard has had.

 

On the flipside, it might of been nice to see Pagano not saddled with a poor GM like Grigson.  In hindsight, it looks like they were both poor at their jobs. 

[DougDew]

Just now, Coffeedrinker said:

I don't understand the meaning of this post.  From your previous posts in this thread it appeared you were confusing Glowinski and Boehm (although Biehm was also a 4th round draft pick).  If you were just trying to use it as another way to knock Ballard, then I misunderstood.

I'm not trying to knock Ballard.  He hired a coach that can install modern offense, so he's done his job as far as I'm concerned.

 

I was merely pointing out that the best the Colts O has looked this year is when it played the 4th round ( I thought UDFA) G they picked up from SEA waiver wire.  I'm knocking the idea that personnel is the main reason for the improved oline stats.

 

 

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

On the flipside, it might of been nice to see Pagano not saddled with a poor GM like Grigson.  In hindsight, it looks like they were both poor at their jobs. 

Which is a puzzler as to why people keep bringing the subject up.  Its old news.  And Ballard has had plenty of time to changeover whatever personnel he wanted too.  He had the #3 and then #6 and plenty of cap, with players cuttable with no dead cap space.  Grigs and Pags are old news.

 

Success of the team is on Ballard's shoulders.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

The Colts have not gone to the playoffs since they got rid of Hamilton.  The Colts were last in the playoffs in 2014, the Colts fired Hamilton Nov of 2015.

If you say so.  I thought the AFCCG was with Chud.  Maybe he was the asst to the HC that year.

[Coffeedrinker]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'm not trying to knock Ballard.  He hired a coach that can install modern offense, so he's done his job as far as I'm concerned.

 

I was merely pointing out that the best the Colts O has looked this year is when it played the 4th round ( I thought UDFA) G they picked up from SEA waiver wire.  I'm knocking the idea that personnel is the main reason for the improved oline stats.

 

 

Well it also coincides with the top 10 LT coming back from injury, the 2nd round pick playing very well at RT, and the starting RB coming off of injury.... but yeah, it's probably the guard they signed last year that is the only difference.

[Coffeedrinker]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

If you say so.  I thought the AFCCG was with Chud.  Maybe he was the asst to the HC that year.

Well, it's not what I say.  It happens to be one of those things that is called a fact.  It can be easily verified by anyone with an internet connection of access to a local library.

[DougDew]

26 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Well, it's not what I say.  It happens to be one of those things that is called a fact.  It can be easily verified by anyone with an internet connection of access to a local library.

I'm not disputing you.  I considered the hiring of Chud as asst to the HC as a supplement to Pep, so they all fit into the same bucket as far as I'm concerned.  

 

Whenever Pep's first season was, I was tired of the O at that point and it had to move on.  So if it was Grigson, Pagano, or Irsay who didn't see that and did nothing about it is the reason we struggled for the remaining Grigson/Pagano years.   

[DougDew]

26 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Well it also coincides with the top 10 LT coming back from injury, the 2nd round pick playing very well at RT, and the starting RB coming off of injury.... but yeah, it's probably the guard they signed last year that is the only difference.

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?

 

[hoosierhawk]

3 minutes 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.  So the tone often 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 are other guys.

 

So, what is impressive?

  

I thought I would never see you admit this! 

[crazycolt1]

8 minutes 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.  So the tone often 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?

 

What is impressive? Certainly not you argument by bringing up old news.  You blind vision of Grigson is getting tiresome.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, hoosierhawk said:

I thought I would never see you admit this! 

?. 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.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

16 hours ago, threeflight said:

6-17.

 

 

Six and seventeen.

 

Counting the W-L record in 2017 seems kind of pointless considering no Andrew Luck, & he was handcuffed to a lame duck coach who he had zero interest in retaining.

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

What is impressive? Certainly not you argument by bringing up old news.  You blind vision of Grigson is getting tiresome.

Its not old news.  When someone mentions that our line is made up of 3 first round draft choices.  And that the Oline improves when AC is in the game.  Its kind of blind vision to simply credit Ballard.

 

That's the present.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

2 hours ago, masterlock said:

I guess I didn't realize that releasing talented, affordable players was part of this plan--e.g., Greg Walden, Rashan Melvin, John Hankins, John Simon.

 

How have those players fared since joining their new teams?

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

Neither did Grigson.

Huh?

 

Who do you think hired Chuck Pagano?      Ryan Grigson.

 

If you come back with Jim Irsay,  it was at the urging of Grigson who interviewed him.

 

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

So if this is the first game in a long time we had a 100 yard rusher, how come nobody is crediting Glowinski?

There was an entire thread yesterday devoted to praising Glowinski.  I was among a number of us who posted about him.

 

[DougDew]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

There was an entire thread yesterday devoted to praising Glowinski.  I was among a number of us who posted about him.

 

Just to get you up to speed.  I've answered much of what you've said....or will say...in responses to other members.

[Cynjin]

54 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Which is a puzzler as to why people keep bringing the subject up.  Its old news.  And Ballard has had plenty of time to changeover whatever personnel he wanted too.  He had the #3 and then #6 and plenty of cap, with players cuttable with no dead cap space.  Grigs and Pags are old news.

 

Success of the team is on Ballard's shoulders.

 

He is still cleaning up the mess that he inherited from the previous regime.  I don't consider, essentially, a year and a half adequate time to overcome that big of an issue.

[DougDew]

24 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

He is still cleaning up the mess that he inherited from the previous regime.  I don't consider, essentially, a year and a half adequate time to overcome that big of an issue.

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 mess is 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. 

[Cynjin]

2 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.

 

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. 

 

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