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

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Cynjin said:

 

I posted earlier that you have a tremendous lack of self awareness.  Let me correct that, you have a complete lack of self awareness.  

Saying it doesn't make it so. 

 

I find it interesting how people tell me what my opinion of Ballard is and attack it, when I have specifically made it a point to not really even disclose what it is....in any thread ever.

 

Other than to say he is doing a good job, and that we are in a better place.

 

All I've done is point out facts that jeopardize an echo chamber that demands people say more than that, which I saw develop about 18 months ago, then grab some popcorn.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Saying it doesn't make it so. 

 

I find it interesting how people tell me what my opinion of Ballard is and attack it, when I have specifically made it a point to not really even disclose what it is....in any thread ever.

 

Other than to say he is doing a good job, and that we are in a better place.

 

All I've done is point out facts that jeopardize an echo chamber that demands people say more than that, which I saw develop about 18 months ago, then grab some popcorn.

 

The bold translated: "I enjoy trolling optimistic fans because I'm not one."

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, J@son said:

 

^  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.  

 

 

My apologies, you didn't say that. 

 

You were the one accusing me of saying that Ballard said the defense was complicated, getting hung up on that word, when the words he used instead (to describe whatever scheme he was talking about) was to the effect "takes long time to learn" relative to other schemes.

 

My mind equates taking a long time to learn with being more complex than something that doesn't take a long time to learn, which I would describe as simple.  But still, I wasn't sure he was even talking about the Tampa 2 to begin with, despite what Reich said last spring.

 

Back to a germane point.  Is running a 4-2-5 or a 4-1-6 50% of the time be best described as a Tampa 2 defense?  As we've come to know it here in Indy?

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

The bold translated: "I enjoy trolling optimistic fans because I'm not one."

Thank you for that predictive response.  Was counting the seconds after hitting the submit.

 

No no.  Trolling is making outlandish statements for getting a rise out of people.

 

I make comments like, Ballard's oline is good in part due to inheriting first round picks like Kelly and AC, and the ability to replace a good player in Mewhort with Smith.

 

The reason that would get a rise out of people is because of their overinflated opinion of Ballard, not my fact based comment.

 

Then because of that, I get accused of hating Ballard and defending Grigson, which is totally based upon the perspective of the reader, not based upon what I actually say.

 

Grab some popcorn and enjoy.

[Jason_]

Just now, DougDew said:

My apologies, you didn't say that. 

You were the one accusing me of saying that Ballard said the defense was complicated, getting hung up on that word,

 

No, I was not accusing you of anything.  I was merely trying to clarify for you that he did not say that because it seemed as if there was some confusion.

 

Quote

when the words he used instead (to describe whatever scheme he was talking about) was to the effect "takes long time to learn" relative to other schemes.

 

Wrong again.  YOU added the word "long" to his quote.  Ballard's exact words, which were quoted verbatim in Trueman's post, were:

 

Quote

but it’s a scheme that it takes a lot of discipline and it takes time to learn."

 

And again, as I tried to clarify in an earlier post, he said this in direct response to the interviewer asking about the inconsistency that we've seen in the defense in the first few weeks of the season.  Ballard simply said it takes time to learn...as in no one should have expected every defensive player to be fully comfortable in the scheme starting week 1 of the regular season.  He knew, as everyone else should have known, that the defense would struggle at the beginning of the season, but as the players became more comfortable in the scheme and became more disciplined in their assignments, then their overall performance would improve.  So to summarize one last time, Ballard was simply explaining why the defense didn't come out playing perfectly in this new scheme from day 1.  

 

Quote

My mind equates taking a long time to learn with being more complex than something that doesn't take a long time to learn, which I would describe as simple. 

 

see above.  

 

Quote

Back to a germane point.  Is running a 4-2-5 or a 4-1-6 50% of the time be best described as a Tampa 2 defense?  As we've come to know it here in Indy?

 

Tampa 2 is simply a specific type of coverage.  No team runs Tampa 2 coverage all of the time.  The Caldwell/Coyer combination ran it far, far more than they should have at a rate of about 50% of the time.  Most teams only run actual Tampa 2 coverage about 10% of the time.  However, whether it's a 4-3, 4-2-5, 4-1-6 doesn't really matter...Tampa 2 simply refers to the coverage assignments for the LBs and secondary.  It can be run from any formation.  

 

Personally I'd say that the Colts defense is primarily a Cover 2 base scheme rather than calling it Tampa 2.  But they'll also run some Cover 1, Cover 3, Man-to-Man etc.  The most correct term might be to simply call it a 4-3 zone scheme.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Back to a germane point.  Is running a 4-2-5 or a 4-1-6 50% of the time be best described as a Tampa 2 defense?  As we've come to know it here in Indy?

 

4-2-5/4-1-6 (and 4-3) is the personnel, not the scheme.

 

Tampa 2 is a scheme.

 

Google has a lot more information on the subject.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=defensive+football+schemes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

No, I was not accusing you of anything.  I was merely trying to clarify for you that he did not say that because it seemed as if there was some confusion.

 

 

Wrong again.  YOU added the word "long" to his quote.  Ballard's exact words, which were quoted verbatim in Trueman's post, were:

 

 

And again, as I tried to clarify in an earlier post, he said this in direct response to the interviewer asking about the inconsistency that we've seen in the defense in the first few weeks of the season.  Ballard simply said it takes time to learn...as in no one should have expected every defensive player to be fully comfortable in the scheme starting week 1 of the regular season.  He knew, as everyone else should have known, that the defense would struggle at the beginning of the season, but as the players became more comfortable in the scheme and became more disciplined in their assignments, then their overall performance would improve.  So to summarize one last time, Ballard was simply explaining why the defense didn't come out playing perfectly in this new scheme from day 1.  

 

 

see above.  

 

 

Tampa 2 is simply a specific type of coverage.  No team runs Tampa 2 coverage all of the time.  The Caldwell/Coyer combination ran it far, far more than they should have at a rate of about 50% of the time.  Most teams only run actual Tampa 2 coverage about 10% of the time.  However, whether it's a 4-3, 4-2-5, 4-1-6 doesn't really matter...Tampa 2 simply refers to the coverage assignments for the LBs and secondary.  It can be run from any formation.  

 

Personally I'd say that the Colts defense is primarily a Cover 2 base scheme rather than calling it Tampa 2.  But they'll also run some Cover 1, Cover 3, Man-to-Man etc.  The most correct term might be to simply call it a 4-3 zone scheme.

You are looking for reasons to argue.  I get it.

 

Take time to learn.  So did he mean short or long time, or just time itself?  Obviously it takes time.  Writing a sentence takes time.  Which did he mean in that context?  Simple or complex, to put it a different way.

 

So our defense, and what Ballard was talking about, is not best described as a Tampa 2.  That's what I thought.  He didn't use the term.

 

If it was, which is characterized by a cover 2 secondary responsibility, then our safeties would have more of a side to side responsibility as opposed to a front to back responsibility.  Correct?

 

I don't think the plan was to play much traditional Tampa 2, or else there would be no need for a rather one-dimensional ballhawking FS, since he doesn't always have deep responsibility.  At least I hope that wasn't the plan.

 

So I assume Ballard is forming a defense to play something more complex than a Tampa 2, as we know it, based upon how he is drafting, the alignments we have been playing, and what he said at this presser.

 

Did I miss something along the line?

[Jason_]

40 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You are looking for reasons to argue.  I get it.

 

.

 

Just... Wow. That sentence with the paragraph that followed are just... Amazing lol

 

"Take time to learn.  So did he mean short or long time, or just time itself?  Obviously it takes time.  Writing a sentence takes time.  Which did he mean in that context?  Simple or complex, to put it a different way" 

 

I'm not explaining again. Reread my previous posts... Read Ballard's full interview. Figure it out for yourself. 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, J@son said:

 

Just... Wow. That sentence with the paragraph that followed are just... Amazing lol

 

"Take time to learn.  So did he mean short or long time, or just time itself?  Obviously it takes time.  Writing a sentence takes time.  Which did he mean in that context?  Simple or complex, to put it a different way" 

 

I'm not explaining again. Reread my previous posts... Read Ballard's full interview. Figure it out for yourself. 

You miss the point.  The full interview isn't relevant.  What Ballard said isn't the point.  Ballard isn't the point.

 

In the context of an interview where the question was about the defense struggling, how the forum member concluded that the operative words "Chicago" "Scheme" "and take time to learn and discipline" being indicators that we are running a Tampa 2 is the point. 

 

I mention that the 34 is the complex defense (synomous with taking time and struggling) and that gets twisted as some sort of shot on Ballard, which derails the thread.

 

Which is the pattern when I mention facts that don't seem to support whatever narrative somebody has going on in their head.

[jvan1973]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You miss the point.  The full interview isn't relevant.  What Ballard said isn't even the point.  Ballard isn't the point.

 

In the context of an interview where the question was about the defense struggling, how the forum member concluded that the operative words "Chicago" "Scheme" "and take time to learn and discipline" being indicators that we are running a Tampa 2 is the point. 

 

I mention that the 34 is the complex defense (synomous with taking time and struggling) and that gets twisted as some sort of shot on Ballard, which derails the thread.

 

Which is the pattern when I mention facts that don't seem to support whatever narrative somebody has going on in their head.

Your love of Grigson is so obvious.   I'm not sure why you deny it.   It obvious in most of your posts.   The likes on this post will enlighten you on how you come off.   Grigson sucked at evaluating o line talent.   He refused to use high draft picks to protect luck.   Kelly was a great pick,   but his fate was sealed before that

[DougDew]

32 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Your love of Grigson is so obvious.   I'm not sure why you deny it.   It obvious in most of your posts.   The likes on this post will enlighten you on how you come off.   Grigson sucked at evaluating o line talent.   He refused to use high draft picks to protect luck.   Kelly was a great pick,   but his fate was sealed before that

LOL. No love for Grigson, but check this out.

 

I'm going to start saying what a good evaluator of running back talent he was, and that I'm glad we have an equal evaluator, but wish we had a superior evaluator.

 

And the unhinged on this forum (described as your like buddies) will  wait a half a second to crash the forum about TRich trade (who was not viewed as a bad RB at the time).  Choosing to look at it from ONLY that one move in a 4 year span.

 

Me then bringing up drafting Vic Ballard, signing Bradshaw, ignoring Donald Brown, and signing Frank Gore will be viewed as me choosing to bring up facts because of some love for a GM, when the real problem is people choosing to not look at blunt facts because it doesn't support the unhinged hate they've had for a few years.  

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

LOL. No love for Grigson, but check this out.

 

I'm going to start saying what a good evaluator of running back talent he was, and that I'm glad we have an equal evaluator, but wish we had a superior evaluator.

 

And the unhinged on this forum (described as your like buddies) will  wait a half a second to crash the forum about TRich (who not viewed as a bad RB at the time).  Choosing to look at it from ONLY that one move in a 4 year span.

 

Me then bringing up drafting Vic Ballard, signing Bradshaw, ignoring Donald Brown, and signing Frank Gore will be viewed as me choosing to bring up facts because of some love for a GM, when the real problem is people choosing to not look at blunt facts because it doesn't support the unhinged hate they've had for a few years. 

 

For those of us less learned than yourself, if you could please spell this out very plainly and simply, it would really help us understand.

 

How do you see the situation?

 

If you had to grade the current regime against prior regimes, how would you rate the GM/HC/OC/DC?  Standard grading system, whichever you choose: scale of 1-10, or A+ - F-.

[jvan1973]

47 minutes ago, DougDew said:

LOL. No love for Grigson, but check this out.

 

I'm going to start saying what a good evaluator of running back talent he was, and that I'm glad we have an equal evaluator, but wish we had a superior evaluator.

 

And the unhinged on this forum (described as your like buddies) will  wait a half a second to crash the forum about TRich trade (who was not viewed as a bad RB at the time).  Choosing to look at it from ONLY that one move in a 4 year span.

 

Me then bringing up drafting Vic Ballard, signing Bradshaw, ignoring Donald Brown, and signing Frank Gore will be viewed as me choosing to bring up facts because of some love for a GM, when the real problem is people choosing to not look at blunt facts because it doesn't support the unhinged hate they've had for a few years.  

 

Hate for a reason.   Grigson sucked

[Trueman]

13 hours ago, DougDew said:

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

 

 

lol , you're a ridiculous person. Truly.
 

Watch from 4:20 - 5:20 , and specifically 5:10-5:20



 

[braveheartcolt]

Some breaking news. Football poster uses 1930/40's racist salutations and references to support his midly interesting point. Way to go. 

[crazycolt1]

9 hours ago, DougDew said:

LOL. No love for Grigson, but check this out.

 

I'm going to start saying what a good evaluator of running back talent he was, and that I'm glad we have an equal evaluator, but wish we had a superior evaluator.

 

And the unhinged on this forum (described as your like buddies) will  wait a half a second to crash the forum about TRich trade (who was not viewed as a bad RB at the time).  Choosing to look at it from ONLY that one move in a 4 year span.

 

Me then bringing up drafting Vic Ballard, signing Bradshaw, ignoring Donald Brown, and signing Frank Gore will be viewed as me choosing to bring up facts because of some love for a GM, when the real problem is people choosing to not look at blunt facts because it doesn't support the unhinged hate they've had for a few years.  

 

There is only one blunt fact that matters and that is that Grigson sucked.

I think you only go the direction you do just to draw attention to yourself and to cause arguments.

[Cynjin]

3 hours ago, Trueman said:

lol , you're a ridiculous person. Truly.
 

Watch from 4:20 - 5:20 , and specifically 5:10-5:20



 

 

That was also interesting to go back and listen to what Ballard said about Luck.  Considering what some posters on here were saying then and where Luck is currently with his play.

[DougDew]

12 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

For those of us less learned than yourself, if you could please spell this out very plainly and simply, it would really help us understand.

 

How do you see the situation?

 

If you had to grade the current regime against prior regimes, how would you rate the GM/HC/OC/DC?  Standard grading system, whichever you choose: scale of 1-10, or A+ - F-.

Wow.  Thank you.  You actually asked for my opinion instead of told me what it is.  Refreshing.

 

I don't grade against prior regimes.  All GMs who aren't here eventually fail, which is why they're not here.  So I guess all previous regimes get an F.  But they all start off with a different set of circumstances and have to navigate different situation.  Some have a QB, others have to hold their valuable pick to draft one.  Some have cap space, some are left with dead money, etc.

 

All I can do is look at the situation at the time and try to evaluate if decisions are A's or F's at the time it was made, given the options that seem apparent.  But I'm just a fan.

 

As far as Polian, I think the forum is generally right-on that he made a lot of A decisions, but then faded.  But I also think those poor decisions later in the regime were influenced by wanting to get another SB for Peyton quickly while at the same time publicly denying the window was closing.  Given a different situation, he may have continued to be an A.  He said he made a mistake by passing on Andy Dalton at the time.  Perhaps that would have changed the situation to where he had a QB for the future and didn't have to over-sign a bunch of marginal FA to keep things together for that last SB.

 

I think the forum beats up on Grigson because its popular, given the feeding frenzy peer pressure nature of social media.  And the fact they became invested in hate during the Pagano vs Grigson situation, and loved Ballard immediately upon his first presser.  I also think there are some media types on this forum who like Ballard and hate Grigson simply because of they way they treated their local media brethren. I look at the situation like this:

 

1. He was bad at drafting.

2. He didn't have much useful input from his coach, whom he probably accurately assessed fairly early, but clearly had little authority to dismiss.

3. He was drafting for schemes that Irsay wanted, and they were outdated.  Even if the oline was full of Nelson's, running the ball up the middle and passing on seven step drops would still get Luck killed, especially considering his style of play.

4. He was decent at finding FAs to fit the scheme and was good at managing the cap.

 

If I only mention 1.  I would get kudos from the forum.  If I pepper threads with 2, 3, or 4, I get shallowly accused of defending Grigson because I'm his dad.  I can attribute that dynamic to only the way others form opinions, not based upon what I say.

 

I've graded both of Ballard's drafts as A's at the time, although the 2017 draft is looking pretty shaky.  The forum seems to just want to focus on the surface and look at only the first round choices, which I don't rate as highly as most. From that, people seem to form their opinions about what mine is, which I find amazing.  I think Ballard has done a good job with FA...rotating the marginal players to fit into new defensive schemes.  I think he has benefited greatly by being able to form a roster that supplies good players to modern schemes and not saddled with the constraints of finding players to fit the outdated schemes the owner wants.  He has full freedom, and the decisions are able to flow from that.  I try to look at situations clearly, like understanding the rules and thanking the NFL for awarding us Glowinski.  From a personality standpoint, I think the media likes the way Ballard treats them, but I like the way Polian and Grigson treated the local media much much better.

 

[ColtsBlueFL]

18 hours 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.  

 

3 hours ago, braveheartcolt said:

Some breaking news. Football poster uses 1930/40's racist salutations and references to support his midly interesting point. Way to go. 

 

I have had to edit/clean up many posts.  Please do not use offensive references (political and/or offensive) and refrain from attacking a poster rather than the post.  Thank you.

[Jason_]

14 hours ago, DougDew said:

You miss the point.  The full interview isn't relevant.  What Ballard said isn't the point.  Ballard isn't the point.

 

In the context of an interview where the question was about the defense struggling, how the forum member concluded that the operative words "Chicago" "Scheme" "and take time to learn and discipline" being indicators that we are running a Tampa 2 is the point. 

 

I mention that the 34 is the complex defense (synomous with taking time and struggling) and that gets twisted as some sort of shot on Ballard, which derails the thread.

 

Which is the pattern when I mention facts that don't seem to support whatever narrative somebody has going on in their head.

 

 

[Myles]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

 

I think the forum beats up on Grigson because its popular, given the feeding frenzy peer pressure nature of social media.  And the fact they became invested in hate during the Pagano vs Grigson situation, and loved Ballard immediately upon his first presser.  I also think there are some media types on this forum who like Ballard and hate Grigson simply because of they way they treated their local media brethren. I look at the situation like this:

 

 

 

No, it really is because he was not good at most of his job.   Entire drafts failed.   He did not protect Luck.   He couldn't get along with the head coach.   He created a team that was thin at almost every position.   We could all see that.   The team had no depth.   Ballard is getting us back to having depth.   But it takes years to undo what Grigson did.

[DougDew]

54 minutes ago, Myles said:

No, it really is because he was not good at most of his job.   Entire drafts failed.   He did not protect Luck.   He couldn't get along with the head coach.   He created a team that was thin at almost every position.   We could all see that.   The team had no depth.   Ballard is getting us back to having depth.   But it takes years to undo what Grigson did.

I don't care about Grigson.  I was asked to grade this regime compared to others, and pointed out items about the previous regime that I think many on the forum choose to ignore.

 

Many assume meddling was solely his fault, and not the logical outcome of a manager trying to guide the ship when faced with poor subordinates whom he could not dismiss.  Irsay said he wanted a 34 (more complex and more expensive) and wanted a power-based running offense (outdated). It takes a few years to add depth when you change schemes.  That's not relevant to the issue of the previous scheme's depth.

 

These things seem pretty obvious to me.

 

 

 

[Myles]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I don't care about Grigson.  I was asked to grade this regime compared to others, and pointed out items about the previous regime that I think many on the forum choose to ignore.

 

Many assume meddling was solely his fault, and not the logical outcome of a manager trying to guide the ship when faced with poor subordinates whom he could not dismiss.  Irsay said he wanted a 34 (more complex and more expensive) and wanted a power-based running offense (outdated). It takes a few years to add depth when you change schemes.  That's not relevant to the issue of the previous scheme's depth.

 

These things seem pretty obvious to me, so I think many choose not to see these things out of fear of being bullied via peer pressure and shout down.

Grigson did poorly in his assignment.    He left the team as an empty shell.   

Sure he did some good things, but ultimately he failed miserably.  

[DougDew]

23 minutes ago, Myles said:

Grigson did poorly in his assignment.    He left the team as an empty shell.   

Sure he did some good things, but ultimately he failed miserably.  

As Ballard said, the team does not have a good core of young players with which to build around.  That goes back to previous drafts which I acknowledge.

 

Part of the issue with responses is the short characterisations of things.  "The team an empty shell" is a bit dramatic towards the negative side.  He left a franchise  QB, a newly re-signed LT, a number 1 WR and a pro-bowl C and cap space. 

 

The defense was always made up of mid-level FA, and comparing that to the situations of previous regimes, Polian filled his D with mid round draft picks and had the benefit of time to undo his early  Rob Morris, Tyrone Poole, Chad Bratzke, Chad Cota and Corey Simon misses; which were also influenced by his coaches, Jim Mora and Vic Fangios 34 defense.  I guess I see a pattern.

[Myles]

28 minutes ago, DougDew said:

As Ballard said, the team does not have a good core of young players with which to build around.  That goes back to previous drafts which I acknowledge.

 

Part of the issue with responses is the short characterisations of things.  "The team an empty shell" is a bit dramatic towards the negative side.  He left a franchise  QB, a newly re-signed LT, a number 1 WR and a pro-bowl C and cap space. 

 

 

Giving him credit for Luck is only fair if you give him the blame for the injured Luck he left.

"Empty" shell is not an exaggeration at all.  The team was thin at nearly every position.  

[DougDew]

38 minutes ago, Myles said:

Giving him credit for Luck is only fair if you give him the blame for the injured Luck he left.

"Empty" shell is not an exaggeration at all.  The team was thin at nearly every position.  

Did you choose not to consider the part where I said that even if you filled the oline with 5 Nelson's, scheme (slow routes, seven step drops, running up the middle) was going to get Luck sacked a lot anyway?  The drafting of Nelson and replacing Mewhort with Smith is not the reason our sack stats have dramatically improved.  You seem to be looking at Luck's injury through the single scope of oline talent, then making a broad negative conclusion. 

 

And that scheme was the result of what Irsay said he wanted upon hiring Grigson.  Do you not know that?

 

OTOH, Irsay did not tell the media that he wants a Eagles style O and go back to a 4-3 scheme when he hired Ballard.  Ballard saw that has the way to go and has the freedom to do it (but Irsay may have hired him with that in mind).  I think we are in a better place because of it.  You seem to look at everything as being the result of the GMs competence when there is more to it than that. 

 

Polian sucked, then he was good, and then he sucked, to put it in the terms of the forum.  Why is that?

[chad72]

47 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

And that scheme was the result of what Irsay said he wanted upon hiring Grigson.  Do you not know that?

 

 

That should not be a pass for Grigson not trying to tell Irsay that the current NFL mandated a certain way of O-line play and schemes, doesn't need to happen in public. I don't know about you but even if I get the biggest opportunity of my life that Grigson got with the GM position, I would have the guts and gumption to convey tactfully to my employer and back it up with facts, that were clearly available.

 

My gut instincts and resume is what got me there, so why would I possibly let an owner who may not be in tune with every single scheme and style on the field dictate on-the-field choices I make? Every time I am questioned, all I have to do is come back with the facts tactfully. Sooner than later, when the results happen, the owner will come around. 

 

To me, that is a cop out for Grigson's failures. I am not buying it. I can however buy the fact that the coaches and ensemble that were bestowed upon Grigson did not provide the best dynamics for communication and assembling talent that would work right on the field, and that is a two way street.

[DougDew]

27 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

That should not be a pass for Grigson not trying to tell Irsay that the current NFL mandated a certain way of O-line play and schemes. I don't know about you but even if I get the biggest opportunity of my life that Grigson got with the GM position, I would have the guts and gumption to convey tactfully to my employer and back it up with facts, that were clearly available.

 

My gut instincts and resume is what got me there, so why would I possibly let an owner who may not be in tune with every single scheme and style on the field dictate on-the-field choices I make? Every time I am questioned, all I have to do is come back with the facts tactfully. Sooner than later, when the results happen, the owner will come around. 

 

To me, that is a cop out for Grigson's failures. I am not buying it. I can however buy the fact that the coaches and ensemble that were bestowed upon Grigson did not provide the best dynamics for communication and assembling talent that would work right on the field.

To me, its fairly obvious that Grigson was intimidated and overmatched, probably by getting the job without first achieving a lot of stature.  By contrast, Ballard has the gravitas and stature to not cave in to what he might think is his bosses wishes.  Grigson may have felt he needed to honor them.  Example, and I am no way suggesting other conversation didn't take place behind the scenes:

 

Irsay says at a presser with Ballard about how much he liked it when the Colts had a franchise QB and a RB like Edgerrin James.  Grigson may have felt compelled to draft Barkley if available where as Ballard may have gone his own way.

 

Yes, I think that is a difference between the two, and we are in a better place.  Also, Irsay seems to be out of the picture more during this transition than he was during the previous transision.  

 

Remember when Irsay was accused of throwing Manning and Polian under the bus about failing to win more SB with PM?  That was an interview after the Seattle game in which we won by blocking a FG and holding on defensively instead of having the last snap.  He said that was the kind of team he has wanted for several years....defense and special teams....and people perceived that as a shot on PM and BP.

 

Irsay's thoughts and footprint were all over the last transition and I think RG was more of a puppy dog in that relationship than Ballard is.  Irsay has been much less visible this time.

[chad72]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

To me, its fairly obvious that Grigson was intimidated and overmatched, probably by getting the job without first achieving a lot of stature.  By contrast, Ballard has the gravitas and stature to not cave in to what he might think is his bosses wishes.  Grigson may have felt he needed to honor them. 

 

Irsay's thoughts and footprint were all over the last transition and I think RG was more of a puppy dog in that relationship than Ballard is.

 

Yep, that is something we can agree on. 

 

Irsay was moving on from Peyton at that point and that cloud of "wanting to win quickly" led him to tweet more frequently, for example "trade winds in the air" before the TRich trade etc., like he felt compelled to sell Luck and the team to the fan base while Peyton was in Denver at the same time, that permeated top down and RG caved into that. Peyton retiring and being removed from the scene has actually let time take care of the rest with Irsay letting Ballard do what he did with Polian, handle all the on-the-field expectations. 

[DougDew]

37 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Yep, that is something we can agree on. 

 

Irsay was moving on from Peyton at that point and that cloud of "wanting to win quickly" led him to tweet more frequently, for example "trade winds in the air" before the TRich trade etc., like he felt compelled to sell Luck and the team to the fan base while Peyton was in Denver at the same time, that permeated top down and RG caved into that. Peyton retiring and being removed from the scene has actually let time take care of the rest with Irsay letting Ballard do what he did with Polian, handle all the on-the-field expectations. 

And one more point.  I think the offensive and defensive schemes Grigson was charged with staffing were becoming outdated the day he was hired.  Irsay said he wanted teams like the Chargers and Steelers (who always gave PM teams fits) but the NFL was moving away from those kinds of teams already by then.  4 years of trying to staff bad schemes added to the problems, and I don't think RG had the ability to go to Irsay and tell him that strategy wasn't working (possibly meaning Pagano would have to go).  That's not saying that RG even had enough vision to see it wasn't working.

 

Ballard has more freedom, and can see what schemes are on the upside trend.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

As Ballard said, the team does not have a good core of young players with which to build around.  That goes back to previous drafts which I acknowledge.

 

Part of the issue with responses is the short characterisations of things.  "The team an empty shell" is a bit dramatic towards the negative side.  He left a franchise  QB, a newly re-signed LT, a number 1 WR and a pro-bowl C and cap space. 

 

The defense was always made up of mid-level FA, and comparing that to the situations of previous regimes, Polian filled his D with mid round draft picks and had the benefit of time to undo his early  Rob Morris, Tyrone Poole, Chad Bratzke, Chad Cota and Corey Simon misses; which were also influenced by his coaches, Jim Mora and Vic Fangios 34 defense.  I guess I see a pattern.

A franchise QB that was going to be drafted here regardless of Grigson. He was Irsay's pick and it didn't take a rocket scientist to know that. A LT, a WR a . Wow, out of a 53 man roster can you say suck? I will give him credit for cap space. Look, I was one of the very last members to defend Grigson and most forum members know this.  I was dead wrong at the time and am man enough to admit it. How bout you?

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

A franchise QB that was going to be drafted here regardless of Grigson. He was Irsay's pick and it didn't take a rocket scientist to know that. A LT, a WR a . Wow, out of a 53 man roster can you say suck? I will give him credit for cap space. Look, I was one of the very last members to defend Grigson and most forum members know this.  I was dead wrong at the time and am man enough to admit it. How bout you?

Right.  Ballard inherited a franchise QB regardless of who the GM was.  I get that. 

 

That I'm man enough to admit what opinion is wrong?  

 

Wait, first let me start popping some popcorn.

[Myles]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Did you choose not to consider the part where I said that even if you filled the oline with 5 Nelson's, scheme (slow routes, seven step drops, running up the middle) was going to get Luck sacked a lot anyway?  The drafting of Nelson and replacing Mewhort with Smith is not the reason our sack stats have dramatically improved.  You seem to be looking at Luck's injury through the single scope of oline talent, then making a broad negative conclusion. 

 

I considered it and found you to be wrong.   You can keep saying it, but you will still be wrong.  

If you cannot see that the line is giving Luck more time, then that is on you.  

 

Besides Grigsons poor decisions was his inability to get along with people so that he could implement things that he thought would help.   That is on him.    He obviously refused to schmooz.  

[Myles]

25 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Right.  Ballard inherited a franchise QB regardless of who the GM was.  I get that. 

 

That I'm man enough to admit what opinion is wrong?  

 

Wait, first let me start popping some popcorn.

Ballard inherited an injured QB.   Grigson inherited an obvious choice in first pick in the draft.  

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, Myles said:

I considered it and found you to be wrong.   You can keep saying it, but you will still be wrong.  

If you cannot see that the line is giving Luck more time, then that is on you.  

 

Besides Grigsons poor decisions was his inability to get along with people so that he could implement things that he thought would help.   That is on him.    He obviously refused to schmooz.  

I'm not following.  Since we had AC and Kelly, and Mewhort instead of Smith when Grigson was here, are you saying that the addition of Nelson has transformed the oline, and moving away from the Chud coaching/scheme to the Reich coaching/scheme isn't the reason?

 

[DougDew]

16 minutes ago, Myles said:

Ballard inherited an injured QB.   Grigson inherited an obvious choice in first pick in the draft.  

Could Ballard trade his high pick to get more, or did he have to keep it to draft only one player with it?  Certainly having Luck on the roster was good first step towards getting more players.  Most new GMs have to find that franchise QB, sometimes even using multiple picks to trade up to get him.

[crazycolt1]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'm not following.  Since we had AC and Kelly, and Mewhort instead of Smith when Grigson was here, are you saying that the addition of Nelson has transformed the oline, and moving away from the Chud coaching/scheme to the Reich coaching/scheme isn't the reason?

 

Scheme is not the reason. Talent level is the reason.

[Jason_]

22 minutes ago, Myles said:

I considered it and found you to be wrong.   You can keep saying it, but you will still be wrong.  

If you cannot see that the line is giving Luck more time, then that is on you.  

 

Besides Grigsons poor decisions was his inability to get along with people so that he could implement things that he thought would help.   That is on him.    He obviously refused to schmooz.  

 

Sorry bro, but in this case you're the one that's wrong.  DD has said some, let's just say, confusing things in this thread, but he's right about the scheme.  Look at QBs that have played for Bruce Arians, Todd Haley etc.  Without a near elite OL, the Air Coryell offense leads to the QB getting hit a lot.  Scheme definitely came into play with the number of sacks that Luck took under Grigs/Pagano.

 

This year, yes the OL is definitely giving Luck more time...but Luck is also getting the ball out much quicker this year than in years past.  So, even if the Colts had the current OL when Pep or Chud were still here, Luck would have still been sacked more than he's been so far this year.  Not nearly as much as he was with the inferior OL's of years past..but more than this year with the new scheme.

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

Scheme is not the reason. Talent level is the reason.

 

they're both contributing factors

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Scheme is not the reason. Talent level is the reason.

Thanks for saying that so clearly. 

 

I think AC, Kelly, and Mewhort 2.0 have been here for years. And Brissett got murdered last year under the same coaching staff we had for 5 years.

 

You seem to be indirectly saying that the addition of Nelson is the reason.  That's okay, I predicted many would say that.

[gspdx]

On 10/30/2018 at 4:51 PM, 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.

 

Let's hope he is one that does what he says - seems so far that is the case.

 

Some GMs tend to get stuck going after the sexy FA signing.  At this point I don't think we will see much of that from Ballard.  But it could all change.  At this point I love the approach.