What Ballard has done that both Grigs and Polian couldn't

[chad72]

3 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

Agree. I hated double-dipping on TE with two valuable day two picks (in a weak TE group) on a rebuilding team. 

 

In a way, the TE position is a microcosm of the big difference between Grigs and Ballard, when it comes to talent evaluation. 

 

 

It is the difference between "I have given you talent, now you make it work by placing him in your system" versus "I will understand your system, what you want, and exactly give you talent that will mesh with your system at a high level".

[throwing BBZ]

Some fair and reasonable thought out posts. Nice job.

 

[Trueman]

47 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

But in regards to Glenn or Schwartz, I do think it's hard to know how realistic that was though. Grigs was a 1st-year GM who just drafted a franchise QB at #1...and that QB's great friend and #1 target from college is available (who was also graded around that area as well). Not to give Grigs too much of a pass...but I wonder if there was pressure from Irsay to take Fleener. Not to mention wanting to help their new franchise QB acclimate to the NFL. (That doesn't excuse the Allen pick though...when OL players were available...I just think there was some context here.)

Yeah, that's just impossible to know. I don't think Irsay is that meddling to be honest , but I don't have definitive proof. Based on what (I think) I know of Grigson , I think he was just obsessed with surrounding Luck with weapons asap.

For me, Luck already had the best security blanket a young QB could ask for in Reggie Wayne. There was no need to invest the 1st pick in the 2nd round on a TE. Just no need at all. Finding suitable production from a TE isn't that difficult , and it certainly isn't nearly as important as building a line.
 

51 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

Looking  back on it, I have no real issue with how Grigs tried to build the OL at first...he just had a combination of poor talent evaluation and poor luck. It's not like he consistenly passed on good OL players in the draft.

I have issue with it. I understand that he "tried" and just failed in his player evaluation , but if it doesn't work , you have to keep investing until it's solved. We almost ruined one of the best QB prospects of all-time. 

He passed on quite a few guys man. I've looked at past drafts. And Trading a 2nd for a CB , and a 1st for RB , regardless of how good/bad they were , when your line is god awful, is inexcusable. 
 

55 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

2013 - If he doesn't have draft Werner...it would have been Rhodes or Hopkins...which would have been a great pick. He didn't have a 2nd round pick after the Davis trade. And his 3rd round pick went to an OG (Thornton).

I mean, it could've been Rhodes or Hopkins , sure. But Travis Fredricks was taken 8 picks later. Larry Watford was taken shortly after the Miami pick in the 2nd round. All GM's miss in the draft , but the philosophy itself was just so, so wrong. He was trying to build the best roof possible on a house with no foundation.
 

1 hour ago, shastamasta said:

2014 - Doesn't have a 1st round pick after the disastrous TRich trade...but wouldn't have missed out on any great OL prospects due to that anyways. He then uses his 2nd round pick on an OG (Mewhort).

Sure, but he could've also kept that pick and addressed the second most important aspect of the team : defense. Or , he could've used that pick and traded down , because you know, we only had 5 friggin' picks in that draft. 

It hurts looking at the draft and knowing Dee Ford was taken with the selection after ours. Or Demarcus Lawerence even OL Joel Bitonio a little later. But nope , we needed  that damn roof. 

Mewhort was a solid pick , and he deserves credit for that - agreed. Shame how that one turned out in the end , but he was a good player.  

 

1 hour ago, shastamasta said:

2015 - Screwed up with the Dorsett pick...but if he doesn't pick Dorsett...it's likely Landon Collins...which is a great pick. No excuse for that 2nd round pick though...traded out with Marpet available.

Yep. And almost every Colts fan I knew wanted Collins or Malcom Brown. But again, the roofer needed his roof.

If you can't address the OL , then at least address the defense or trade back. We had enough weapons. It was ridiculous the day it happened.

 

1 hour ago, shastamasta said:

2016 - Draft Kelly in the 1st round, Clark in the 3rd round and Haeg in the 5th round. Should have probably used the 2nd round pick on Whitehair...but still devoted a lot of draft capital to the OL.

Yep. After using high capital on Thornton and Mewhort in 4 drafts , and Luck almost dying out there , he finally realized he couldn't find band-aids on the free agency market. 

He spent a : 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 1st on weapons for Luck : Fleener, Allen, T.Y,  Moncrief, Richardson, Dorsett all before the Kelly draft. 

I mean c'mon. That's just egregious ineptitude. Ironically, the guy he drafted the latest of that group (92nd overall) turned out be the best player of the bunch by a substantial margin.

 

1 hour ago, shastamasta said:

None of that really worked out...due to a mix of poor evaluation and injuries...but he did mostly what he could (outside of 2012) during the first few years.

No man... you keep going until it's fixed. You don't use two top 90 picks in 4 years and say you tried. You don't trade a 1st for a RB and say you tried. You don't draft a WR in the 1st round and say you tried. You don't trade a 2nd for a CB and say you tried. 

Ballard watched our OL get punked last year and said enough's enough. If Grigson had've gotten that 3rd overall pick do you think he would've : a) traded back ,  b) selected a guard? and c) selected another guard in the 2nd?

I highly doubt it. We'd likely have Chubb and a terrible line still. And Austin Howard would be on bloated 4 year deal playing RT. You don't spend 2 top 90 picks in 4 years on an OL and get any sympathy from me. 

The dude was the antithesis of everything I believe in football wise. 

[imacoltfan]

6 hours ago, csmopar said:

while I don't disagree, prior to 2008, lets look at what Polian did do, Glenn, Saturday, Diem, heck even Scott were long time anchors on a solid OL. The fall of the OL didn't really start until Glenn's retirement in 2007

Polian didn’t draft Glenn. Bill Tobin did. 1997 he and Adam Meadows.

[Moosejawcolt]

7 hours ago, Nesjan3 said:

Honestly i think Polian gets more credit than he deserves for the 2000s. Without Manning we would have been a losing team most of those years,

Agree some what.   However, it was Polian that continually put those 1st round  skill players on offence so that Peyton could achieve what he did.  

[EastStreet]

Polian may not have been great, but he wasn't bad. He was torn between a QB driven team, and a HC's love for D. Mudd did just fine with the OL, and his leaving was the beginning of the OL decline. Grigson was just bad lol. 

 

Ballard did great this year. Won't crown him until after next year's season. He's got O skill (RB/WR) needs, and plenty of areas to improve on D. If he kills it in those areas next year, he can have the crown.

[jvan1973]

7 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Even as a kid, I was never much of a Polian fan. At that time, I was still smart enough to realize that Manning was releasing the ball quickly, and that the defenses never held up in the playoffs. I just didn't understand the main reasons. Ballard is so much better than Grigson it's not even close. His first two drafts are better than all five of Grigsons put together. He also is better in the draft than Polian as well. Polian was an average drafter at best. He just managed to get some big hits that inflated people's opinion of him. Ballard probably has hit on over half his picks in a decent way, and he's very solid in FA as well, while keeping our cap in great shape. Best GM in Indy history if he continues anywhere close to this IMO.

I'm a big fan of Ballard,   but he has a long way to go before he catches Polian.   He is no where close at this point

[DougDew]

21 hours ago, Cynjin said:

Cue DougDew discrediting anything positive Ballard in 10, 9, 8,.......

He drafted Nelson and Smith as Gs, and his second choice at HC moved Smith to RT.  He was awarded Glowinski by the NFL for the Colts having a 3-13 record the year before.  He drafted Banner and signed Howard.  He waived the starting G for the Rams last year.

 

Is this not factually correct? 

 

Is this not giving him credit for drafting Nelson at G and a good olineman in the 2nd? 

 

Am I supposed to suppress other facts because they don't fit the narrative?  Is that hate?

 

And notice it doesn't say anything about previous GMs.

 

Edit:  If I choose to look at "anything he's done" beyond the chosen narrow scope of the Oline, has he fixed the pass rush?  Has he fixed the secondary?  Has he fixed the WR corps?  

 

It seems like he has chosen to address the oline first and has done a good job. 

 

As far as comparing to other GMS, I'm not sure they chose to address the Oline first, so I'm not sure why OP would choose to look at GMs through the narrow prism of oline, unless it is to cherry-pick what he needs to validate an already chosen opinion.

 

Is this response too complex for you?

[CR91]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

He drafted Nelson and Smith as Gs, and his second choice at HC moved Smith to RT.  He was awarded Glowinski by the NFL for the Colts having a 3-13 record the year before.  He drafted Banner and signed Howard.  He waived the starting G for the Rams last year.

 

Is this not factually correct? 

 

Is this not giving him credit for drafting Nelson at G and a good olineman in the 2nd? 

 

Am I supposed to suppress other facts because they don't fit the narrative?  Is that hate?

 

And notice it doesn't say anything about previous GMs.

 

Edit:  If I choose to look at "anything he's done" beyond the chosen narrow scope of the Oline, has he fixed the pass rush?  Has he fixed the secondary?  Has he fixed the WR corps?  

 

It seems like he has chosen to address the oline first and has done a good job. 

 

As far as comparing to other GMS, I'm not sure they chose to address the Oline first, so I'm not sure why OP would choose to look at GMs through the narrow prism of oline, unless it is to cherry-pick what he needs to validate an already chosen opinion.

 

Is this response too complex for you?

 

That was not cherry-picking. I was pointing out the trouble we've had with our oline which has been a glaring need for a decade.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, CR91 said:

 

That was not cherry-picking. I was pointing out the trouble we've had with our oline which has been a glaring need for a decade.

I apoligize for that comment.  The thought should have been directed at others.

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

He drafted Nelson and Smith as Gs, and his second choice at HC moved Smith to RT.  He was awarded Glowinski by the NFL for the Colts having a 3-13 record the year before.  He drafted Banner and signed Howard.  He waived the starting G for the Rams last year.

 

Is this not factually correct? 

 

Is this not giving him credit for drafting Nelson at G and a good olineman in the 2nd? 

 

Am I supposed to suppress other facts because they don't fit the narrative?  Is that hate?

 

And notice it doesn't say anything about previous GMs.

 

Edit:  If I choose to look at "anything he's done" beyond the chosen narrow scope of the Oline, has he fixed the pass rush?  Has he fixed the secondary?  Has he fixed the WR corps?  

 

It seems like he has chosen to address the oline first and has done a good job. 

 

As far as comparing to other GMS, I'm not sure they chose to address the Oline first, so I'm not sure why OP would choose to look at GMs through the narrow prism of oline, unless it is to cherry-pick what he needs to validate an already chosen opinion.

 

Is this response too complex for you?

To the incorrect smith take of yours that you ignored in the other thread

 

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2018/8/3/17649448/chris-ballard-talks-luck-braden-smith-and-colts-future-on-1070-the-fan

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Edit:  If I choose to look at "anything he's done" beyond the chosen narrow scope of the Oline, has he fixed the pass rush?  Has he fixed the secondary?  Has he fixed the WR corps?

 

Has any GM "fixed" their entire team?  Are there any teams without a single weakness on the roster?

 

Is he doing an overall good/satisfactory/bad job?

 

I know I've given you a hard time recently, but help me out here.  When compared to the other 31 GMs in the NFL, where would you rank Ballard?

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

To the incorrect smith take of yours that you ignored in the other thread

 

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2018/8/3/17649448/chris-ballard-talks-luck-braden-smith-and-colts-future-on-1070-the-fan

 WOW.  You use that article to challenge what I concluded.  Our levels of reading comprehension are way different.

 

On August 3rd, He specifically said, “We’ve asked Braden to play right tackle.”

 

so it isn’t clear whether Ballard is saying this is something Smith will do going forward, or just that they’ve asked him to do it as a fill in.

 

Doesn't change the thought that CB drafted him as a G in April, and my opinion that Smith wasn't on his radar as RT.

 

RADAR as RT means potentially solving the starting RT position, not as a fill in that we've been dealing with for years. 

 

 

Just now, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Has any GM "fixed" their entire team?  Are there any teams without a single weakness on the roster?

 

Is he doing an overall good/satisfactory/bad job?

 

I know I've given you a hard time recently, but help me out here.  When compared to the other 31 GMs in the NFL, where would you rank Ballard?

I haven't yet.  Too early to tell. 

 

To the point, where have you and many others already ranked him?

 

[Cynjin]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 WOW.  You use that article to challenge what I concluded.  Our levels of reading comprehension are way different.

 

On August 3rd, He specifically said, “We’ve asked Braden to play right tackle.”

 

so it isn’t clear whether Ballard is saying this is something Smith will do going forward, or just that they’ve asked him to do it as a fill in.

 

Doesn't change the thought that CB drafted him as a G in April, and my opinion that Smith wasn't on his radar as RT.

 

RADAR as RT means potentially solving the starting RT position, not as a fill in that we've been dealing with for years. 

 

 

 

 

[jvan1973]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 WOW.  You use that article to challenge what I concluded.  Our levels of reading comprehension are way different.

 

On August 3rd, He specifically said, “We’ve asked Braden to play right tackle.”

 

so it isn’t clear whether Ballard is saying this is something Smith will do going forward, or just that they’ve asked him to do it as a fill in.

 

Doesn't change the thought that CB drafted him as a G in April, and my opinion that Smith wasn't on his radar as RT.

 

RADAR as RT means potentially solving the starting RT position, not as a fill in that we've been dealing with for years. 

 

 

I haven't yet.  Too early to tell. 

 

To the point, where have you and many others already ranked him?

 

They asked him in late July to play right tackle.   Not after the season started like you have claimed many times.      

[Lucky Colts Fan]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

To the point, where have you and many others already ranked him?

 

I'm obviously a biased Colts fan, but I would put him near the top with guys like Les Snead, Belichick, Kevin Colbert, Howie Roseman, John Schneider, and Ozzie Newsome.

 

If you think it's too early to tell if Ballard is a good GM, then shouldn't you wait to post about him until you CAN tell?

 

[DougDew]

Just now, jvan1973 said:

They asked him in late July to play right tackle.   Not after the season started like you have claimed many times.      

What exactly is meant by "they asked" and "we asked".  Who took that lead on the ask, CB or FR?  Do you know?  Did one suggest and the other agree?   

 

IIRC Smith played some RT during the preseason.  He was stuck at G behind Slauson, while Howard got the preseason RT snaps.  Then it was Haeg.  After Glowinski was awarded to us and AC started regularly, Smith started sticking at RT.

 

Nothing  indicates that CB thought he was the potential long term answer at RT when he was drafted.   Mewhort was gone and Slauson was not the long term answer there.  CB knew that and wanted a starting caliber G in the draft.  

 

I'm not criticizing CB at all.  But other want to give him credit for something when the evidence suggests circumstances played into it more than his foresight.

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I'm obviously a biased Colts fan, but I would put him near the top with guys like Les Snead, Belichick, Kevin Colbert, Howie Roseman, John Schneider, and Ozzie Newsome.

 

If you think it's too early to tell if Ballard is a good GM, then shouldn't you wait to post about him until you CAN tell?

 

Post about him at all?  If you haven't noticed there crazy one, my posts aren't critical or praising, but are more centrist, which merely seem critical to you and some others when compared to the pre-judged praise bubble comments of the typical Ballard thread.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Post about him at all?  If you haven't noticed there crazy one, my posts aren't critical or praising, but are more centrist, which merely seem critical to you and some others when compared to the pre-judged praise bubble comments of the typical Ballard thread.

 

Ok... but do you understand where you are?  This is a Colts forum where Colts FANS talk about the Colts.  This isn't a Logic-501 graduate course.

 

FAN - short for fanatic - a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause.  I'm not one bit ashamed to be the one asking the conductor of the hype-train to go faster.

 

If fans want to ride the hype-train, why do you feel the need to come in a try to let the air out of the balloon?  It comes across as petty and contrarian.

[DougDew]

17 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Ok... but do you understand where you are?  This is a Colts forum where Colts FANS talk about the Colts.  This isn't a Logic-501 graduate course.

 

FAN - short for fanatic - a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause.  I'm not one bit ashamed to be the one asking the conductor of the hype-train to go faster.

 

If fans want to ride the hype-train, why do you feel the need to come in a try to let the air out of the balloon?  It comes across as petty and contrarian.

I don't intentionally do that.  I intend to discuss facts, or at least some connect-the-dots opinions.  I think some feel I bring up facts that are contrarian because I want to be contrarian.

 

No.  I bring up these things because I feel that sharing information makes for an interesting discussion over a cheerleading thread.  But hey, I stay out of my fair share of those too.

 

In this thread, I only jumped in because some smarty pants called me out while adding no substance to the thread.  I'm not going to run away, so don't blame me for being here, blame him. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I don't intentionally do that.  I intend to discuss facts, or at least some connect-the-dots opinions.  I think some feel I bring up facts that are contrarian because I want to be contrarian.

 

No.  I bring up these things because I feel that sharing information makes for an interesting discussion over a cheerleading thread.  But hey, I stay out of my fair share of those too.

 

In this thread, I only jumped in because some smarty pants called me out while adding no substance to the thread.  I'm not going to run away, so don't blame me for being here, blame him. 

 

Fair enough.  As long as you understand you're going to have to deal with fanatical responses.