Chris Ballard at the Half-way Point (and Beyond)

[NewColtsFan]

 

This story has been on the front page of the website for more than 24 hours.    No mention of it here.     I don't pretend to understand that.  

 

So,  here it is....     if you wonder what Chris Ballard is thinking,  he tells you.

 

We are 1/2 of the way into the season.    Chris Ballard talks about his team....   what he likes,  what he'd like to work on...   

 

It touches on a good number of issues that we've been talking about.     Including trades and free agency and more.    Interestingly enough,  the interviewer references having more than $50 Mill to spend in FA,  which I thought was a pretty low number to quote. 

 

It's a good and easy read:

 

https://www.colts.com/news/chris-ballard-on-colts-first-half-trade-deadline-spending-cap-money

 

[smittywerb]

“This is one thing that I’ve been very consistent about since I walked in the door. I knew we needed to build a core base of young talent here. And it’s easier to train your own. We want to be able to train our own players. Does that mean we’re against free agency? No. It does not, and I think we have some examples on our team with Margus Hunt, Al Woods, (Denico) Autry, Ryan Grant, (Matt) Slauson . We’ve gone out. Is it the A-level guys that the media and everybody writes about? No, but these are good football players that we signed and we thought we got at good value for our team. And you want to continue doing that. I think sometimes just spending money to spend money — nah, that’s not always the smart thing to do. And when you do build your team up with your own guys, and they get to their second contracts and you begin to reward them, that’s when I think you’ll start to see some of that cap space disappear. Is there a time that we could go into free agency and we see a piece that we think fits and it fits culturally, from not only from a scheme perspective, but also from a character perspective? When you bring a guy into your locker room and you him a highly-paid player, there’s a lot more that comes with that than just playing on the field. That means that guy needs to do everything right because he’s looked upon differently than the rest of the locker room.”

 

Basically what most of us has been saying.  Build off a young foundation.  That way you can RETAIN your talent and not put yourself in cap hell later.  

[dodsworth]

Doesn't churning the roster by signing cheap players chip

away the cap space? Maybe that's why we only have 50 mil

in cap now.

 

Ballard has been doing a lot of churning this year.

[DougDew]

But don't all GMs kind of say the same thing?  We love our guys better than guys on other teams, until they come to our team and then we love them.

 

And I've never known a GM yet to say, we want to sign the high profile guys to a lot of guaranteed money contracts.  This is the key to building a championship roster.

 

I'm not saying he is B-sss-ing.  I just think they all say the same thing.

[hoosierhawk]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

But don't all GMs kind of say the same thing?  We love our guys better than guys on other teams, until they come to our team and then we love them.

 

And I've never known a GM yet to say, we want to sign the high profile guys to a lot of guaranteed money contracts.  This is the key to building a championship roster.

 

I'm not saying he is B-sss-ing.  I just think they all say the same thing.

He has been very consistent in his approach from day one. I feel he wants to build a solid locker room full of his own type of players with good character as well as talent. I don't think you will ever seem him bring in a bad apple ( self absorbed, arrogant, egotistical, trouble maker ) that will start to divide the locker room and the team. Very easy to do with a very young team like the Colts. Once he gets the right leadership in place in the locker room I think you will see him step out more in free agency. Leadership in the locker room will kick butt if someone gets out of line but don't think you will ever see them bring in an ODB or Dez Bryant or anyone else who feels they are above the team. Just my opinion. 

[Jackie Daytona]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

This story has been on the front page of the website for more than 24 hours.    No mention of it here.     I don't pretend to understand that.  

 

I take it to mean most read the website, and most have a good understanding of Ballard's plan and the moves he makes should surprise no one, as the guy does what he says.....  Now, based on many posts made here, I'm not sure why I think MOST posters comprehend this all... lol

[Trueman]

Couple things I found interesting:

On the defense: “It’s funny, ‘cause I’ve lived this in Chicago our first year in 2004. I thought we had a very talented team, but it’s a scheme that it takes a lot of discipline and it takes time to learn."

Sure seems like he's building a Tampa 2.

On free agency: "Is there a time that we could go into free agency and we see a piece that we think fits and it fits culturally, from not only from a scheme perspective, but also from a character perspective? When you bring a guy into your locker room and you him a highly-paid player, there’s a lot more that comes with that than just playing on the field. That means that guy needs to do everything right because he’s looked upon differently than the rest of the locker room.”

Translation: he's gunna be super picky for any big name/money signings. They need to check a lot of boxes , not only on the field , but off it. 

[shasta519]

6 hours ago, DougDew said:

But don't all GMs kind of say the same thing?  We love our guys better than guys on other teams, until they come to our team and then we love them.

 

And I've never known a GM yet to say, we want to sign the high profile guys to a lot of guaranteed money contracts.  This is the key to building a championship roster.

 

I'm not saying he is B-sss-ing.  I just think they all say the same thing.

 

True. And building through the draft isn’t some revolutionary concept. All GMs want to draft well. 

 

 

[Yoshinator]

Ballard repeats the same few words a lot of the time. "Well" "Look" You know". Something I was always taught when I was in school (the type of school in the 90s where kids still learned), was to "diversify your words when speaking". It makes for a much smoother interview. Just something that personally made me cringe a bit when reading this.

 

Now that I got that off my chest, Ballard is a very smart guy. He knows his vision, he knows what is going on with the team, and he is always two steps ahead to improve it before it goes wrong. The draft part of the interview is also nice. He remembers his roots, is proud of it, and uses it to his advantage to continuously watch college games and form judgments on players early while they play college, and years before they enter the NFL. If a player is a Chris Ballard guy and fits our scheme, Ballard is on top of him like Peanut Butter on Jelly. That's why he's great at the draft.

 

This interview should give everyone confidence in Chris Ballard as it gives a birds-eye view into what he does during the day and year. Thank you @NewColtsFan for bringing this to everyone's attention!

[DougDew]

9 hours ago, hoosierhawk said:

He has been very consistent in his approach from day one. I feel he wants to build a solid locker room full of his own type of players with good character as well as talent. I don't think you will ever seem him bring in a bad apple ( self absorbed, arrogant, egotistical, trouble maker ) that will start to divide the locker room and the team. Very easy to do with a very young team like the Colts. Once he gets the right leadership in place in the locker room I think you will see him step out more in free agency. Leadership in the locker room will kick butt if someone gets out of line but don't think you will ever see them bring in an ODB or Dez Bryant or anyone else who feels they are above the team. Just my opinion. 

So why is that special?

 

I can't remember when the Colts ever signed a guy like that.  Maybe Cory Simon by Polian?

 

One guy in 20 years.

[aaron11]

3 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Ballard repeats the same few words a lot of the time. "Well" "Look" You know".

yeah there was a lot of that in there, but we should  be used to it by now

 

chuck has to be the all time record holder for you knows.  he put that in almost every sentence on the radio 

[DougDew]

7 hours ago, Trueman said:

Couple things I found interesting:

On the defense: “It’s funny, ‘cause I’ve lived this in Chicago our first year in 2004. I thought we had a very talented team, but it’s a scheme that it takes a lot of discipline and it takes time to learn."

Sure seems like he's building a Tampa 2.

 

That's exactly the opposite of what Dungy said, if we're talking about his Tampa 2.  He said it was a very simple defense to learn, which is why it was always supplied with rookies and young players.  It allowed Polian to focus more on offense because non-special players could play defense immediately because it was so simple.

 

The zone-blitz 34 is complicated by comparison.  At least that's what Polian said many times on his old radio show.

[lollygagger8]

Me reading this article ..........

 

I enjoy reading/listening to Ballard. Thanks for posting! 

[TheMarine]

The difference w/ Dungy's Tampa 2 both here in the 2000s and in Chicago, they had the parts in place, whereas here we have a WIL and a FS. We dont have the premier rusher like Freeney/Mathis. We dont have that 3 tech yet like Sapp. We don't have amazing zone able CBs yet. Since we don't have all the defensive parts in place yet, players need to be more disciplined in their area/gap assignments, and the Coordinator should be mixing it up a lot more (which, we get burned when we do switch to man, and teams have figured out our stunts). Having those premier defensive players allows the others in the scheme to play a much more 'simple' role

[ColtsBlitz]

4 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Ballard repeats the same few words a lot of the time. "Well" "Look" You know". Something I was always taught when I was in school (the type of school in the 90s where kids still learned), was to "diversify your words when speaking". It makes for a much smoother interview. Just something that personally made me cringe a bit when reading

At least we know it’s not scripted! Lol

[chad72]

He wants to re-sign our own and build a core and does not want to spend money for the heck of it, I totally get it. Unfortunately, the NFL salary cap floor will force him to pony up some cash, and that cash would not be easily spent being given to "value" free agents like he calls them unless he overpays them, which he won't.

 

It will also not be time to re-sign our own (might be a few years away) thus forcing his hand to sign "some" marquee free agents eventually. 

[Dark Superman]

This is Ballard's first year with his own staff. I'm not pinning last year against him with no Andrew Luck and the Keep Chopping Wood Squad.

[ColtsBlueFL]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

That's exactly the opposite of what Dungy said, if we're talking about his Tampa 2.  He said it was a very simple defense to learn, which is why it was always supplied with rookies and young players.  It allowed Polian to focus more on offense because non-special players could play defense immediately because it was so simple.

 

The zone-blitz 34 is complicated by comparison.  At least that's what Polian said many times on his old radio show.

 

Everything you mention is true.  

 

3-4 man defense generally requires more skilled, veteran players (more costly) then a 4-3 and is more difficult to learn and execute.

 

However, both 3-4 and 4-3 defenses have changed over these last many years.  They have even migrated toward each other some in a hybrid type scheme, with roots to the base.  But the shifting to spread, pistol, shotgun, RPO offensive schemes have made running base Defense a less than 30% while running different sub packages has become the new norm.  Even the Tampa 2 has morphed.  There are Cover 2 zone schemes, and mixed zone/man under schemes. Even some press cover.  Gap discipline is still key though.  That always seems to be the difficult aspect, at some times.  

 

Eberflus is a Rod Marinelli offshoot.  Marinelli and Lovie Smith (who Chris Ballard worked under)  are both Tony Dungy coaching tree members (along with Mike Tomlinson, Herm Edwards, and Leslie Frazier)  but all have adjusted the schemes as the offenses adopted many of the college concepts.  I’d like someone knowledgeable with all 22 access to compare our Eberflus D to the Dungy D of 2005 for similarities/differences. (I’d really like Greg Cossell, but there’s likely less than a zero chance)

 

I still think a monster penetrating 3 tech, rangy and smart MIKE that can cover, and a battering ram Strong Safety are important players to the scheme.  A superior tackling and speedy WILL goes without saying. Overall D speed is important.  Ballard is as qualified as anybody to know the characteristics needed for each and every position for this D, and has vast experience scouting for it, including cornerbacks (Peanut Tillman anybody?)

 

He’s very early in the process of getting it right.

[DougDew]

50 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Everything you mention is true.  

 

3-4 man defense generally requires more skilled, veteran players (more costly) then a 4-3 and is more difficult to learn and execute.

 

However, both 3-4 and 4-3 defenses have changed over these last many years.  They have even migrated toward each other some in a hybrid type scheme, with roots to the base.  But the shifting to spread, pistol, shotgun, RPO offensive schemes have made running base Defense a less than 30% while running different sub packages has become the new norm.  Even the Tampa 2 has morphed.  There are Cover 2 zone schemes, and mixed zone/man under schemes. Even some press cover.  Gap discipline is still key though.  That always seems to be the difficult aspect, at some times.  

 

Eberflus is a Rod Marinelli offshoot.  Marinelli and Lovie Smith (who Chris Ballard worked under)  are both Tony Dungy coaching tree members (along with Mike Tomlinson, Herm Edwards, and Leslie Frazier)  but all have adjusted the schemes as the offenses adopted many of the college concepts.  I’d like someone knowledgeable with all 22 access to compare our Eberflus D to the Dungy D of 2005 for similarities/differences. (I’d really like Greg Cossell, but there’s likely less than a zero chance)

 

I still think a monster penetrating 3 tech, rangy and smart MIKE that can cover, and a battering ram Strong Safety are important players to the scheme.  A superior tackling and speedy WILL goes without saying. Overall D speed is important.  Ballard is as qualified as anybody to know the characteristics needed for each and every position for this D, and has vast experience scouting for it, including cornerbacks (Peanut Tillman anybody?)

 

He’s very early in the process of getting it right.

Agreed.  What we want to play is probably not the same basic Tampa 2 that we had 10 years ago.  

 

Its why I tend to hesitate calling our defense a Tampa 2.  We should probably just call it   Defense.

 

What I would like to know is, what are the responsibilities of the Safties in this defense as opposed to a T2 .

 

Polian would say that a T2 doesn't really have a FS/SS since the Safties don't break in terms of front to back, but rather side to side.

 

So do we really need a Hooker and a tough guy (Geathers), or two safeties who are more hybrids of both?

[hoosierhawk]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

So why is that special?

 

I can't remember when the Colts ever signed a guy like that.  Maybe Cory Simon by Polian?

 

One guy in 20 years.

Can't remember saying it was special or that the Colts had a habit of doing it. Many clamor for us to be more active in FA and I pointed out why ,especially with a very young team, it is not wise.

 

Your quote from above:

"And I've never known a GM yet to say, we want to sign the high profile guys to a lot of guaranteed money contracts.  This is the key to building a championship roster. "

 

I  remember reading and article about a year ago that stated Grigson from 2012-2016 spent over $200,000 on FAs. Didn't hear him say it but saw him do it.

[ColtsFanMikeC]

18 hours ago, dodsworth said:

Doesn't churning the roster by signing cheap players chip

away the cap space? Maybe that's why we only have 50 mil

in cap now.

 

Ballard has been doing a lot of churning this year.

 

Only $50 mil in cap space.... is a lot to be under the cap.  This is why some have criticized Ballard for not going after a few big name/high profile guys in FA because we have the cap to do it, he's just not wasting money on it.

 

18 hours ago, DougDew said:

But don't all GMs kind of say the same thing?  We love our guys better than guys on other teams, until they come to our team and then we love them.

 

And I've never known a GM yet to say, we want to sign the high profile guys to a lot of guaranteed money contracts.  This is the key to building a championship roster.

 

I'm not saying he is B-sss-ing.  I just think they all say the same thing.

 

@hoosierhawk hit the nail on the head... Grigs didn't say it...............

 

 but he went out and overpaid Ricky Jean-Francois, Laron Landry, Samson Satele, Tom Zbikowski, Greg Toler, Donald Thomas, Darius Heyward-Bey, Arthur Jones, Hakeem Nicks, Andre Johnson, Trent Cole, Todd Herremans.... to name a few... and wasted a first-round draft pick on Trent Richardson, etc.....

 

he also made Gosder Cherilus the highest paid RT in the NFL (Cherilus' career got cut short by injuries he had prior to becoming a Colt, so I wasn't sure if I should put him in the list above).

 

 

6 hours ago, DougDew said:

So why is that special?

 

I can't remember when the Colts ever signed a guy like that.  Maybe Cory Simon by Polian?

 

One guy in 20 years.

 

See the list above.

[Trueman]

7 hours ago, DougDew said:

That's exactly the opposite of what Dungy said, if we're talking about his Tampa 2.  He said it was a very simple defense to learn, which is why it was always supplied with rookies and young players.  It allowed Polian to focus more on offense because non-special players could play defense immediately because it was so simple.

 

The zone-blitz 34 is complicated by comparison.  At least that's what Polian said many times on his old radio show.

And?

They asked him about the defense , and his first inclination was to refer to the Tampa 2 they ran in Chicago as a reference point.

That was my indicator. I wasn't saying "he must be talking about Tampa 2 because of it's complexity."

Maybe the scheme will change/vary as we add talent , but for now , it's pretty damn similar. 

[DougDew]

3 hours ago, Trueman said:

And?

They asked him about the defense , and his first inclination was to refer to the Tampa 2 they ran in Chicago as a reference point.

That was my indicator. I wasn't saying "he must be talking about Tampa 2 because of it's complexity."

Maybe the scheme will change/vary as we add talent , but for now , it's pretty damn similar. 

Granted, I didn't know exactly how you were referring to the Tampa 2 in your comment. 

 

But if our D is similar to what Dungy ran, a Tampa 2, Dungy said it was simple and not complex.

 

Honestly, I personally think we run something a bit different than what a Tampa 2 is and I probably wouldn't call it that.

[Jason_]

11 hours ago, DougDew said:

That's exactly the opposite of what Dungy said, if we're talking about his Tampa 2.  He said it was a very simple defense to learn, which is why it was always supplied with rookies and young players.  It allowed Polian to focus more on offense because non-special players could play defense immediately because it was so simple.

 

The zone-blitz 34 is complicated by comparison.  At least that's what Polian said many times on his old radio show.

 

Ballard didn't say it was a complicated defense.  He simply said that it takes time to learn and requires a lot of discipline.  His comments were in response to the interviewer asking about inconsistency in their defensive performance so far this year:

Quote

 

What is your assessment of the defense? It seems like it’s been inconsistent at times.

“It’s funny, ‘cause I’ve lived this in Chicago our first year in 2004. I thought we had a very talented team, but it’s a scheme that it takes a lot of discipline and it takes time to learn. And, look: the one time you’re not in a gap, that you don’t have your vision and your eyes right, bad things happen. And I just think it’s just the natural progression that we’re going through. We have had games where we’ve been outstanding, and I think the players and the coaches will tell you that last week was not our best effort and we’ve gotta be better.”

 

 

[Trueman]

6 hours ago, DougDew said:

But if our D is similar to what Dungy ran, a Tampa 2, Dungy said it was simple and not complex.

Learning discipline can still be difficult or at least time consuming. Especially if we have a lot of carry overs from the previous scheme -- which we do. 

That doesn't mean the same thing as being advanced tactically. Tampa is more simple , but that doesn't mean dudes can just learn all the intricacies overnight.

I have no idea why you're turning this into "Ballard says it's difficult , but Dungy doesn't" , unless this is somehow your attempt at a foothold in saying we're running something different than Tampa 2. In which case , I would just say chill out. You might be right , but this isn't the way to prove it.

Ballard specifically said it reminds him of the Bears first learning Lovie's defense when he first got there in 2004. He then said "it's a scheme that takes time to learn."  "It's" indicates what to you?  To me , it means he's talking about the same defense , or at the very least , the same principles. 

Was Dungy's quote 8 games into his first season with Indy? Because that would be the equivalent. I'm sure it took our guys time to learn the intricacies of the  scheme in 2002 as well. No defense is instantly installed and perfected.

[DougDew]

8 hours ago, Trueman said:

Learning discipline can still be difficult or at least time consuming. Especially if we have a lot of carry overs from the previous scheme -- which we do. 

That doesn't mean the same thing as being advanced tactically. Tampa is more simple , but that doesn't mean dudes can just learn all the intricacies overnight.

I have no idea why you're turning this into "Ballard says it's difficult , but Dungy doesn't" , unless this is somehow your attempt at a foothold in saying we're running something different than Tampa 2. In which case , I would just say chill out. You might be right , but this isn't the way to prove it.

Ballard specifically said it reminds him of the Bears first learning Lovie's defense when he first got there in 2004. He then said "it's a scheme that takes time to learn."  "It's" indicates what to you?  To me , it means he's talking about the same defense , or at the very least , the same principles. 

Was Dungy's quote 8 games into his first season with Indy? Because that would be the equivalent. I'm sure it took our guys time to learn the intricacies of the  scheme in 2002 as well. No defense is instantly installed and perfected.

I'm not.  You're the one who responded to Ballard's comment:

 

 “It’s funny, ‘cause I’ve lived this in Chicago our first year in 2004. I thought we had a very talented team, but it’s a scheme that it takes a lot of discipline and it takes time to learn."
 

by saying:

Sure seems like he's building a Tampa 2.

 

I was commenting that according to Polian and Dungy, that wouldn't be the way to describe a Tampa 2 defense, (relative to others we could choose to run)

[Jason_]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I said that I was not clear as to what Ballard was specifically talking about. Somebody equated what Ballard was saying to the Tampa 2, "That it sure seems like we're building a Tampa 2".   My comment was about the summation of Ballard's comment by another, not specifically about Ballard's comment.  

 

Are you one of those touchy forum gestapo guys that jumps on people if they don't appear to salute Der-Ballard vigorously enough?

 

and that's exactly why I posted what I did.  I included the question Ballard was asked and his full response to it.  As to the poster who said "that it sure seems like we're building a tampa 2"...well that's what Frank Reich said in his introductory press conference.  

 

As to the gestapo nonsense....you're trying too hard to be a martyr and no one cares.  

[Jason_]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I'm not.  You're the one who responded to Ballard's comment:

 

 “It’s funny, ‘cause I’ve lived this in Chicago our first year in 2004. I thought we had a very talented team, but it’s a scheme that it takes a lot of discipline and it takes time to learn."
 

by saying:

Sure seems like he's building a Tampa 2.

 

I was commenting that according to Polian and Dungy, that wouldn't be the way to describe a Tampa 2 defense, (relative to others we could choose to run)

 

And if you'd read my post instead of getting butt-hurt over it, you'd have realized that you're misunderstanding things.  Dungy said it was not a complicated defense.  Even Reich, in his introductory press conference, said they were going to install a tampa 2 defense to simplify things for the younger players.  That doesn't mean it's not going to take time to  learn.  It will take time, just not as much time as other more complicated schemes.  

 

You're equating Ballard's comment that it takes time to learn to mean that it's a complicated scheme and that's not the case nor is it what Ballard said.  

[Cynjin]

19 hours ago, DougDew said:

Quit backpedaling.  Any pro defense takes time to learn.  That's obvious. The post-er equated what Ballard said about the scheme taking time to learn and being disciplined and used Ballard's words to suggest we are playing Tampa 2.  

 

Trueman introduced the term Tampa 2.  Ballard did not.  

 

Like him, you misread it as me criticizing what Ballard said, and because you're a member of the Ballard Patrol, you chimed in.

 

 

Your posts are getting more ridiculous by the day.

 

No one has to misread you as criticizing Ballard, because that is what you do all the time.  You refuse to give him credit for anything good and bring up anything that didn't go right as evidence that he is not dong good job.  You even go so far as to post that a GM's job is easy.

 

You demonstrate almost daily that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Jason_]

19 hours ago, DougDew said:

Quit backpedaling.  Any pro defense takes time to learn.  That's obvious. The post-er took what Ballard said about the scheme taking time to learn and being disciplined and used Ballard's words to suggest those are characteristics of a Tampa 2 defense, not simply any NFL defense.  

 

Trueman introduced the term Tampa 2.  Ballard did not.  

 

Like him, you misread it as me criticizing what Ballard said, and because you're a member of the Ballard Patrol, you chimed in.

 

 

lord have mercy.  I'm not backpedaling anything.  No Ballard did not use the term Tampa 2, but again, Frank Reich did in his introductory press conference when he was asked what style of defense he would implement.  We've known it would be a Tampa 2 defense at least from that press conference.  I don't know why anyone would just be figuring that out now.  

 

My point, once again, is that Ballard did not say it was a complicated defense.  I'm not trying to defend Ballard because there's no reason to.  I was just trying to clarify for you what he said.  Next time I'll just let you read the interview yourself, but with your problems comprehending what I"m saying that may not work out well either.

 

Quote

Any pro defense takes time to learn.  That's obvious.

 

This ^ makes it sound like YOU'RE  the one who's backpedaling. 

[ColtStrong2013]

I have seen enough to know that CB and Frank are here to stay... They have patience from the ownership, and the wins will come sooner than later (we might be seeing them very soon if we can string together 5 wins at home to finish the season). Andrew Luck should have a good 8-10 years left in his career, and possibly more like 12.

 

Looking beyond? Ballard has the vision. He has the executives around him (Ed Dodds, Rex Hogan, Mike Bluem) to put the vision to practice by drafting well and structuring contracts to leverage the capspace in the organization's favor. He has the coach. The quarterback. The offensive line to push defenses around. A tightend group to exploit mismatches and that others are envious of right now. Very well might have the runningback of the future in Mack. And is focusing on building a defense from the ground up, with key pieces coming together in Turay, Leonard, Hooker, (hopefully Lewis). Next year the draft class is defensive heavy and he has solid capital (and will likely acquire more by then.) 

 

When these rookies and sophomore players (and next years draft) get a few years under their belts and we have a seasoned group of strong talent across the depth chart, Ballard can continue focusing on the draft to find key depth and guys to develop instead of plugging them in immediately. That's how championship rosters are built. 

 

I realize I am an eternal optimist when it comes to this organization, but I am buying in. I believe we are watching a team being built the right way, with all the right pieces in place to build around. 

[Cynjin]

18 hours ago, DougDew said:

Where have I criticized Ballard in this thread?  

 

Or where have I criticized him for anything he's done other than give a fabricated B+ grade for Nelson pick and B for Hooker due to positional value.  "Anything that doesn't go right" is what happens to every GM in the business.  I recognize that, which is why I have never criticized any Colts GM for that, even when it was popular to do it in the past.

 

This is how the Ballard-patrol sees things.  If you don't give an A, you hate.  If you point out that Kelly was a good pick, and that Ballard inherited AC, you're defending Grigson.  

 

 

 

I don't care what grade you give him, I personally don't give grades.  The fact that you don't realize that you criticize Ballard shows a tremendous lack of self awareness.  That you can't see that the Colts are in a better place now than with the previous regime is amazing and not in a good way.

[MB-ColtsFan]

On 10/31/2018 at 3:55 AM, Jared Cisneros said:

Ballard repeats the same few words a lot of the time. "Well" "Look" You know". Something I was always taught when I was in school (the type of school in the 90s where kids still learned), was to "diversify your words when speaking". It makes for a much smoother interview. Just something that personally made me cringe a bit when reading this.

 

If a player is a Chris Ballard guy and fits our scheme, Ballard is on top of him like Peanut Butter on Jelly. That's why he's great at the draft.

 

Okay, so, as for the 1st paragraph...,um..., how do you feel about Jim Irsay interviews?

 

As for the 2nd paragraph above...don't you have it backwards?  Doesn't jelly go on top of the peanut butter??!  Everybody in the history of the world knows it is physically and logically IMPOSSIBLE to put on the peanut butter after the jelly is already laid down!  C'mon, man!

 

 

heh, heh...just playin' with ya', man. 

[DougDew]

21 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

I don't care what grade you give him, I personally don't give grades.  The fact that you don't realize that you criticize Ballard shows a tremendous lack of self awareness.  That you can't see that the Colts are in a better place now than with the previous regime is amazing and not in a good way.

I've never said we weren't in a better place. 

 

And I don't compare him to the previous regime.  Others do, because people have invested emotionally almost from his first presser, that he is definitely better than the previous regime and they need constant confirmation of it.  

 

So when I point out things like that Kelly wasn't picked by Ballard, Mewhort was a good pick, and Ballard inherited AC, that fails to provide them the confirmation they seek.  

 

And some of the more invested ones say I bring it up to defend Grigson.  No, I bring it up because its stupid not to.

[Trueman]

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

I'm not.  You're the one who responded to Ballard's comment:

 

 “It’s funny, ‘cause I’ve lived this in Chicago our first year in 2004. I thought we had a very talented team, but it’s a scheme that it takes a lot of discipline and it takes time to learn."
 

by saying:

Sure seems like he's building a Tampa 2.

 

I was commenting that according to Polian and Dungy, that wouldn't be the way to describe a Tampa 2 defense, (relative to others we could choose to run)

LOL , so based on your comments , I shouldn't suppose that the entire  reason for bringing Dungy/Polian quotes devoid of context (or relevancy , really) isn't to discredit my assumption?

You mentioned them why , exactly? 

 

On 10/31/2018 at 11:22 AM, DougDew said:

What we want to play is probably not the same basic Tampa 2 that we had 10 years ago.  

 

Its why I tend to hesitate calling our defense a Tampa 2.  We should probably just call it   Defense.

 

19 hours ago, DougDew said:

But if our D is similar to what Dungy ran, a Tampa 2, Dungy said it was simple and not complex.

 

Honestly, I personally think we run something a bit different than what a Tampa 2 is and I probably wouldn't call it that.

Because anyone with half a brain can see what you're doing. 

[Barry Sears]

Can we stop with all the back and forth arguing?  Everyone can have an opinion, but demeaning posts and name calling is just so middle school.  

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, J@son said:

 

lord have mercy.  I'm not backpedaling anything.  No Ballard did not use the term Tampa 2, but again, Frank Reich did in his introductory press conference when he was asked what style of defense he would implement.  We've known it would be a Tampa 2 defense at least from that press conference.  I don't know why anyone would just be figuring that out now.  

 

My point, once again, is that Ballard did not say it was a complicated defense.  I'm not trying to defend Ballard because there's no reason to.  I was just trying to clarify for you what he said.  Next time I'll just let you read the interview yourself, but with your problems comprehending what I"m saying that may not work out well either.

 

 

This ^ makes it sound like YOU'RE  the one who's backpedaling. 

I'll try to spoon feed this to you. 

 

Here is what I said after Truman....not Ballard...but Truman said "Sure seems like he's building a Tampa 2".

 

That's exactly the opposite of what Dungy said, if we're talking about his Tampa 2.  He said it was a very simple defense to learn, which is why it was always supplied with rookies and young players.  It allowed Polian to focus more on offense because non-special players could play defense immediately because it was so simple.

 

The zone-blitz 34 is complicated by comparison.  At least that's what Polian said many times on his old radio show.

 

Don't you get it?  I'm questioning Truman's assessment that Ballard was even talking about an actual Tampa 2.  Especially knowing that we play a 4-2-5 and 4-1-6 about 50% of the time.

 

The words simple and complicated is what POLIAN said, not me, which is synonymous with taking time to learn.....as a SCHEME compared to others.

 

And somehow this gets read as a criticism of Ballard.  Geez. 

[DougDew]

23 minutes ago, Trueman said:

LOL , so based on your comments , I shouldn't suppose that the entire  reason for bringing Dungy/Polian quotes devoid of context (or relevancy , really) isn't to discredit my assumption?

You mentioned them why , exactly? 

 

 

Because anyone with half a brain can see what you're doing. 

Yes absolutely, everything I've said is focused completely on discrediting your assumption.  Not Ballard's

 

 

[DougDew]

16 minutes ago, Barry Sears said:

Can we stop with all the back and forth arguing?  Everyone can have an opinion, but demeaning posts and name calling is just so middle school.  

Well, golly.  It would be really helpful if people actually got the opinion right before they started arguing about it.

[Jason_]

43 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

 

And somehow this gets read as a criticism of Ballard.  Geez. 

 

^  this is the part that YOU'RE not getting.  I never read your comment as a criticism of Ballard.  I never treated it as a criticism of Ballard.  Maybe you've been getting that from other members here but I am not one of them.  

 

So how about you spoonfeed yourself...and start with some decaf; and get out of here with the martyr complex.  Not everyone is out to get you.