SC-Coltsfan

Ballard press conference

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

......

 

Asked about investing the oline.  He said even though we gave up 56 sacks last year he never saw that there was a terrible talent deficiency there. (Must come as a shock to so many here...or else he's lying), but will continue to invest in both oline and dline.

 

.........

 

 

 

 

 

I think you misunderstood what he was saying.  The reporter even prefaced the question by acknowledging that Ballard had honestly admitted this time last year that he had not invested enough in that O-line.

 

I don't believe Ballard said "he never saw that there was terrible talent deficiency there" in reference to the O-line group from a year ago that gave up the 56 sacks. What I think he was saying (starting at ~16:08) was that he did not see a position group this year  (DL, DB, WR, etc.. ) "that was just that deficient"; referring comparatively to how bad that oline (that gave up 56 sacks) was last year.

 

IMO ... He then went on to allude to the D-Line and WR position groups needing attention,  and that they had made some moves try to improve them in the off-season, and these groups especially the DL would continue to be addressed.<<< This is my interpretation not his words.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, superrep1967 said:

He all but said we need a pass rusher and I think he'll be looking hard for one. In the draft or free agency but sounds to me like that's going to a top priority. I mean a player who can't get consistent pressure from the edge we need that desperately. 

And I'm good with that.  I'm really hoping he can somehow pry Frank Clark outta Seattle, but I'm not holding my breath for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, esmort said:

 

 

 

I think you misunderstood what he was saying.  The reporter even prefaced the question by acknowledging that Ballard had honestly admitted this time last year that he had not invested enough in that O-line.

 

I don't believe Ballard said "he never saw that there was terrible talent deficiency there" in reference to the O-line group from a year ago that gave up the 56 sacks. What I think he was saying (starting at ~16:08) was that he did not see a position group this year  (DL, DB, WR, etc.. ) "that was just that deficient"; referring comparatively to how bad that oline (that gave up 56 sacks) was last year.

 

IMO ... He then went on to allude to the D-Line and WR position groups needing attention,  and that they had made some moves try to improve them in the off-season, and these groups especially the DL would continue to be addressed.<<< This is my interpretation not his words.

 

 

You are correct in your interpretation about what Ballard said about the Oline.  For some reason I am not surprised that the other poster did not understand what Ballard was saying.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see some just can't get away from posting baiting comments.

 

He used the words "talent deficiency" in response to the question about "investing enough" in the oline.  IMO, he changed the term from investing enough to talent deficient because he sensed the questioner implied a talent deficiency within the question, but worded it more politely in the question.  The thought of talent deficient wouldn't normally come to the mind of of GM when describing players, IMO.  Ballard simply redirected the wording to address what the questioner was actually asking but didn't have the guts to ask it that way.

 

Personally, I don't think he was saying that any unit was talent deficient, since I don't think even an average GM would imply the players who are still on the team, or any other former player, was "talent deficient".  (Good just couldn't shake the injuries, right?).  I don't think even Buddy Ryan would call a player talent deficient, so Ballard was using that term as a proxy for discussing what the questioner and fans were probably thinking.

 

What he really thought about the unit is anyone's guess, but it would be pretty classless to imply that the former oline was "talent deficient", even by indirectly doing so by talking about the other units. 

 

So I can't bring myself to think that he actually was saying that the previous oline was talent deficient, because I don't like the idea of thinking of him as a classless person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I see some just can't get away from posting baiting comments.

 

He used the words "talent deficiency" in response to the question about "investing enough" in the oline.  IMO, he changed the term from investing enough to talent deficient because he sensed the questioner implied a talent deficiency within the question, but worded it more politely in the question.  The thought of talent deficient wouldn't normally come to the mind of of GM when describing players, IMO.  Ballard simply redirected the wording to address what the questioner was actually asking but didn't have the guts to ask it that way.

 

Personally, I don't think he was saying that any unit was talent deficient, since I don't think even an average GM would imply the players who are still on the team, or any other former player, was "talent deficient".  (Good just couldn't shake the injuries, right?).  I don't think even Buddy Ryan would call a player talent deficient, so Ballard was using that term as a proxy for discussing what the questioner and fans were probably thinking.

 

What he really thought about the unit is anyone's guess, but it would be pretty classless to imply that the former oline was "talent deficient", even by indirectly doing so by talking about the other units. 

 

So I can't bring myself to think that he actually was saying that the previous oline was talent deficient, because I don't like the idea of thinking of him as a classless person. 

 

When you give up 56 sacks and get completely dominated by teams in your division... I don't think it's a stretch to call that group talent deficient. Seeing that AC is the only player in that group that maintained his starting role (Kelly barely played that year), it's very obvious what he and the rest of the world saw: a group that needed a full revamp. And that's exactly what he did.

Being honest and admitting that that group wasnt up to his standards doesnt make him a bad person. He took accountability for a line that everyone on planet earth knew was bad. Here you go again trying to warp a situation into another way to take an obvious potshot at Ballard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Legend of Luck said:

 

When you give up 56 sacks and get completely dominated by teams in your division... I don't think it's a stretch to call that group talent deficient. Seeing that AC is the only player in that group that maintained his starting role (Kelly barely played that year), it's very obvious what he and the rest of the world saw: a group that needed a full revamp. And that's exactly what he did.

Being honest and admitting that that group wasnt up to his standards doesnt make him a bad person. He took accountability for a line that everyone on planet earth knew was bad. Here you go again trying to warp a situation into another way to take an obvious potshot at Ballard.

I don't think its normal for a boss to indirectly tell an employee that he was part of a talent deficient group.  He probably didn't mean to do it, but that's why some GMs limit their answers and cut the presser short in order to avoid rambling comments that backhandedly criticize others.  (if you interpret what he said like esmort).  Its also why GM speak typically involves things like, "doesn't fit our plans" or "move in a different direction".  They don't openly talk about talent deficiency.  He was being open and a little too accommodating towards the press question, and, frankly, said too much for a person in his position, IMO.    

 

I went through a lot of work to summarize the presser.  I didn't do it to take pot shots or to argue.  I wanted to know the substance of what he said, since early yesterday.  I  found it interesting that ( I thought ) he didn't call the previous oline talent deficient.  That wasn't a judgement on him as to whether or not he should have, its was simply interesting. 

 

If people now point out to me that he actually did say that and he did it deliberately, yes, I think its in poor taste.  It was at best careless.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the Brissett comments.  My take on that is that he is speaking like an executive.   He wants his employee to achieve.  To be used in the manner his been trained.  To excel and prosper as he moves forward.

 

What "not anywhere" means is that he doesn't want Brissett laboring on the bench somewhere.

 

In terms of trade, the team that values Brissett less will offer a low round pick.  The team that sees Brissett as a starting QB will give a higher round.

 

Where his comments about the oline were somewhat careless, IMO, his comment about Brissett are skillful.  As it stands, he has defined "not just anywhere" as the team that would value Brissett the highest. 

 

Not coincidentally, the team that offers the Colts the most compensation would also be the "best place" for Brissett to go, because that team thinks highly of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, he addressed the OL to improve the metrics across the board and the results speak for themselves. For once, it gave us the hope that we could run on the road though it needs to be backed up with play calling to stick with the run. :) 

 

Now, I am waiting for him to address the DL. The only difference, I am hoping, is that it is a combination of FA and draft picks instead of just relying on draft picks because I do feel DL takes more seasoning to produce results typically. Plus, we are not picking at the top of the draft any more to get a blue chip 3-down guy, in all likelihood. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, boo2202 said:

Very true points. Agree with most of what you said. The basham and banner picks look really bad. Hairston has regressed. Walker looks decent. Hooker?? Can he stay healthy, same could be said about Mack. Every time he gets tackled I’m like please get up.

They look bad in that it's never good to "waste" a draft pick but considering that no GM is going to hit on 100% of his picks, I like the fact that they cut there losses rather than letting pride get in the way and hanging on to a player because at one point you believed he could help the team.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, NewEra said:

Yeah who the heck knows what happened last year but that draft sucked. Especially in comparison to this year. Hopefully he's trending up and nails it this year too! I think our scouts are bringing it!!

 

Huh?

 

Hooker,  Wilson, Mack, Stewart, Hairston and Walker.

 

That's six of the eight picks.   All either start or contribute. 

 

And that draft.....      sucked?      Really?      Seriously?     

 

Did someone else hack your account?       Wow.......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DougDew said:

I don't think its normal for a boss to indirectly tell an employee that he was part of a talent deficient group. 

You are assuming he did it indirectly.  There is a very good chance he had already had the conversation with the players that he thought needed to improve or not up to the new standard of play expected.

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

 

He probably didn't mean to do it, but that's why some GMs limit their answers and cut the presser short in order to avoid rambling comments that backhandedly criticize others.  (if you interpret what he said like esmort).  Its also why GM speak typically involves things like, "doesn't fit our plans" or "move in a different direction".  They don't openly talk about talent deficiency.  He was being open and a little too accommodating towards the press question, and, frankly, said too much for a person in his position, IMO. 

Again this is only true if the comments blindsided the people.  Personally when I have to give an update on a project and someone is behind or their quality is not where it needs to be, I talk to that person (those people) before I give the report.  

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

I went through a lot of work to summarize the presser.  I didn't do it to take pot shots or to argue.  I wanted to know the substance of what he said, since early yesterday.  I  found it interesting that ( I thought ) he didn't call the previous oline talent deficient.  That wasn't a judgement on him as to whether or not he should have, its was simply interesting. 

 

If people now point out to me that he actually did say that and he did it deliberately, yes, I think its in poor taste.  It was at best careless.   

Again contrarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

You are assuming he did it indirectly.  There is a very good chance he had already had the conversation with the players that he thought needed to improve or not up to the new standard of play expected.

Again this is only true if the comments blindsided the people.  Personally when I have to give an update on a project and someone is behind or their quality is not where it needs to be, I talk to that person (those people) before I give the report.  

Again contrarian.

I think most examples you provided would be discussed in the context of "performance deficiency".  A "talent deficiency" speaks to the notion that you think their performance will never improve because of what they lack. 

 

That's harsh.  And its careless to say it that way in public.

 

Again, your criticisms of me are derived from wrong perceptions if not flat out errors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Huh?

 

Hooker,  Wilson, Mack, Stewart, Hairston and Walker.

 

That's six of the eight picks.   All either start or contribute. 

 

And that draft.....      sucked?      Really?      Seriously?     

 

Did someone else hack your account?       Wow.......

 

Yes!! Lol, a * who lost his mind. Okay sucked was over the top. Also, I might be getting my drafts mixed up lol. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Huh?

 

Hooker,  Wilson, Mack, Stewart, Hairston and Walker.

 

That's six of the eight picks.   All either start or contribute. 

 

And that draft.....      sucked?      Really?      Seriously?     

 

Did someone else hack your account?       Wow.......

 

 

To be fair...it's not unusual for most draft picks to be on the roster and contributing two years after being drafted. The 2017 teams had a bunch of guys from the 2016 draft like Clark, Morrison and Green playing a lot of snaps.

 

The 2017 draft currently has three starters...Hooker, Mack and Walker. Hooker and Mack are good. Walker is a decent starting ILB...though Ballard hasn't really invested in the MIKE position. So if an opportunity to updgrade MIKE presents itself...I don't think they should hesitate. That might not be a popular opinion...just how I see it. 

 

That's a decent enough draft...especially given the circumstances. I don't think it says much about Ballard either way. It always hurts to miss out on Day Two picks...but what's done is done.

 

This upcoming draft will be very interesting...as the Colts first pick will be in the mid 20s. Does Ballard sit back and let the draft come to him? Does he trade back and to go crazy on Day Two again? Does he trade up if someone slips? 

 

I only know two things about this upcoming draft...a DL player will be taken AND I will be there to see Day Two and Day Three.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shastamasta said:

 

To be fair...it's not unusual for most draft picks to be on the roster and contributing two years after being drafted. The 2017 teams had a bunch of guys from the 2016 draft like Clark, Morrison and Green playing a lot of snaps.

 

The 2017 draft currently has three starters...Hooker, Mack and Walker. Hooker and Mack are good. Walker is a decent starting ILB...though Ballard hasn't really invested in the MIKE position. So if an opportunity to updgrade MIKE presents itself...I don't think they should hesitate. That might not be a popular opinion...just how I see it. 

 

That's a decent enough draft...especially given the circumstances. I don't think it says much about Ballard either way. It always hurts to miss out on Day Two picks...but what's done is done.

 

This upcoming draft will be very interesting...as the Colts first pick will be in the mid 20s. Does Ballard sit back and let the draft come to him? Does he trade back and to go crazy on Day Two again? Does he trade up if someone slips? 

 

I only know two things about this upcoming draft...a DL player will be taken AND I will be there to see Day Two and Day Three.

 

Well....    to be REALLY fair,  I'm not sure why you're defending the post I was commenting on?     You called the draft "decent"...     the other poster sure didn't.

 

The poster I responding to,  a poster I typically like,  literally described the class as.....  it SUCKED.

 

Do you REALLY want to back that?     Seriously?

 

If you listen to Pat Kirwan,  he grades draft classes 3 years later...   and says if you get three starters out of a draft class you've had a good draft.     Hooker --- starter.    Wilson --- plays the majority of snaps.    Mack --- starter.    Stewart --- rotational guy.     Hairston -- regressed, but plays good special teams.    Walker --- starter.      By my count,  that's three starters, plus two rotational guys, one who plays more than 50 percent of the snaps and one player who had a poor year but contributes on ST. 

 

I don't see a class that sucks.    I see a decent class that still has upside.    Hooker,  Wilson,  Mack, Walker, ALL have upside.   Stewart and Hairston can get better too.    Nothing sucks here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DougDew said:

I see some just can't get away from posting baiting comments.

 

He used the words "talent deficiency" in response to the question about "investing enough" in the oline.  IMO, he changed the term from investing enough to talent deficient because he sensed the questioner implied a talent deficiency within the question, but worded it more politely in the question.  The thought of talent deficient wouldn't normally come to the mind of of GM when describing players, IMO.  Ballard simply redirected the wording to address what the questioner was actually asking but didn't have the guts to ask it that way.

 

Personally, I don't think he was saying that any unit was talent deficient, since I don't think even an average GM would imply the players who are still on the team, or any other former player, was "talent deficient".  (Good just couldn't shake the injuries, right?).  I don't think even Buddy Ryan would call a player talent deficient, so Ballard was using that term as a proxy for discussing what the questioner and fans were probably thinking.

 

What he really thought about the unit is anyone's guess, but it would be pretty classless to imply that the former oline was "talent deficient", even by indirectly doing so by talking about the other units. 

 

So I can't bring myself to think that he actually was saying that the previous oline was talent deficient, because I don't like the idea of thinking of him as a classless person. 

So you have a problem with a GM that is honest in his thoughts and comments?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

So you have a problem with a GM that is honest in his thoughts and comments?

No.  Not sure how you got to that question either. 

 

I don't have a "problem" with anything he's said, nor anything he has done, ever.  (must I disclose that opinion, like a payment to cross a bridge, or can I keep being ambiguous about it if it suits me?)

 

I simply found his comments about the oline to be interesting, in which ever way you want to interpret them.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Well....    to be REALLY fair,  you didn't describe this draft class.    You just commented on it without saying much of anything.

 

The poster I responding to,  a poster I typically like,  literally described the class as.....  it SUCKED.

 

Do you REALLY want to back that?     Seriously?

 

If you listen to Pat Kirwan,  he grades draft classes 3 years later...   and says if you get three starters out of a draft class you've had a good draft.     Hooker --- starter.    Wilson --- plays the majority of snaps.    Mack --- starter.    Stewart --- rotational guy.     Hairston -- regressed, but plays good special teams.    Walker --- starter.      By my count,  that's three starters, plus two rotational guys, one who plays more than 50 percent of the snaps and one player who had a poor year but contributes on ST. 

 

I don't see a class that sucks.    I see a decent class that still has upside.    Hooker,  Wilson,  Mack, Walker, ALL have upside.   Stewart and Hairston can get better too.    Nothing sucks here.

 

 

I don't think it sucks...so I wouldn't defend that. Nor do I think it was great. That's why I said decent.  

 

I think impact and value are better measures than players starting or contributing though. To put in perspective, the combined AV of Nelson and Leonard was greater than the combined AV of all six of those players last season. So when you compare 2017 to 2018. But like I said, it was a different situation and what's done is done.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

So you have a problem with a GM that is honest in his thoughts and comments?

Just wondering though, about your overall opinion about truth and stuff.

 

If he did in fact say the previous oline was talent deficient, would you think it was more important for him to disclose that opinion to appease opinionated fans over not being so blunt about it to support the young men who are fighting for a roster spot and risking getting CTE doing it?

 

See, (if that's what he actually said) I think he didn't really mean to tell the truth and was probably just careless, so I wouldn't say it was a problem.  

 

But, I actually think he didn't say last year's oline was talent deficient.   

 

I'm interested in understanding the combination of opinions that thinks he did mean to say it, but still considers him a class guy.  That must be a conflict that's tough to sort out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Just wondering though, about your overall opinion about truth and stuff.

 

If he did in fact say the previous oline was talent deficient, would you think it was more important for him to disclose that opinion to appease opinionated fans over not being so blunt about it to support the young men who are fighting for a roster spot and risking getting CTE doing it?

 

See, (if that's what he actually said) I think he didn't really mean to tell the truth and was probably just careless, so I wouldn't say it was a problem.  

 

But, I actually think he didn't say last year's oline was talent deficient.   

 

I'm interested in understanding the combination of opinions that thinks he did mean to say it, but still considers him a class guy.  That must be a conflict that's tough to sort out.

 

Huh?

 

Basically, in a nutshell, a year ago he said the problems of the O-line were his.    That is was HIS FAULT the line did so poorly.    That he didn't do a good enough job getting enough or the right talent in to the building.     He named no names.    He stated the obvious -- the O-line was poor.    He took full and complete responsibility.      Isn't that a classy move to make?    

 

There's a reason why Ballard is viewed as a classy guy.     Because he is.

 

He made fun of himself in his press briefing yesterday for not interviewing Reich in the first go around.     He made fun of himself for not seeing that Braden Smith could be a tackle.    Saw him as a guard all the way.    Said his area scout,  and the assistant O-line coach both told him Smith could be a tackle.    He told them both that Smith was a guard and that's it.    Then DD told Ballard he thought Smith could be a tackle around the pre-season and since the options were falling fast, they played Smith some at RT before the season started.    In short,  he made fun of himself for being so completely wrong on Smith when others were right.    Isnt' that a classy move?

 

There's no conflict for me or anyone else.    But apparently there is for you.....      Really?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Huh?

 

Basically, in a nutshell, a year ago he said the problems of the O-line were his.    That is was HIS FAULT the line did so poorly.    That he didn't do a good enough job getting enough or the right talent in to the building.     He named no names.    He stated the obvious -- the O-line was poor.    He took full and complete responsibility.      Isn't that a classy move to make?    

 

There's a reason why Ballard is viewed as a classy guy.     Because he is.

 

He made fun of himself in his press briefing yesterday for not interviewing Reich in the first go around.     He made fun of himself for not seeing that Braden Smith could be a tackle.    Saw him as a guard all the way.    Said his area scout,  and the assistant O-line coach both told him Smith could be a tackle.    He told them both that Smith was a guard and that's it.    Then DD told Ballard he thought Smith could be a tackle around the pre-season and since the options were falling fast, they played Smith some at RT before the season started.    In short,  he made fun of himself for being so completely wrong on Smith when others were right.    Isnt' that a classy move?

 

There's no conflict for me or anyone else.    But apparently there is for you.....      Really?

 

LOL, that's my basic reaction to this entire page.

 

I don't think you get the gist of the conversation that took place at the top of the page.  That's okay.  Its really only about one thing, whether or not Ballard threw last year's oline players under the bus.  I'll summarize:

 

I recapped the presser, and noted that Ballard, IMO, said that he DIDN'T think the oline was "talent deficient" last year.  I pointed that out since I thought that was interesting on some levels.

 

esmort very cordially explained that I misinterpreted what Ballard said, and in so many words, Ballard DID indirectly call last year's oline "talent deficient"

 

Another commented to simply parrot esmort as an avenue to criticize me 

 

I responded to esmort that if  Ballard said last year's oline was talent deficient, then he essentially told guys that are on the current roster (Haeg, Clark) Good, and other former players that he thought they were talent deficient.  IMO, If Ballard actually called the former oline talent deficient, rather than other typical "GM speak" terms, I thought that was classless, or careless at best.

 

Another quoted me to criticize me but made irrelevant comparisons, and I responded.

 

Another then asked me if I had a problem with truthful GMs (even when the truth throws the current and former players under the bus)

 

Anyway:

 

We are now left with the thought of whether or not Ballard truthfully said in a presser that he thought the previous oline was talent deficient.  And if he meant to say that, I was wondering how that statement squared with the thought that he is a class guy.  My opinion is that those two thoughts are in conflict, in that telling the press that your previous oline had a talent problem is a bit classless.

 

And these opinions don't even apply to me, because I don't think he said the oline talent was deficient in the first place.

 

Follow?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, DougDew said:

LOL, that's my basic reaction to this entire page.

 

I don't think you get the gist of the conversation that took place at the top of the page.  That's okay.  Its really only about one thing, whether or not Ballard threw last year's oline players under the bus.  I'll summarize:

 

I recapped the presser, and noted that Ballard, IMO, said that he DIDN'T think the oline was "talent deficient" last year.  I pointed that out since I thought that was interesting on some levels.

 

esmort very cordially explained that I misinterpreted what Ballard said, and in so many words, Ballard DID indirectly call last year's oline "talent deficient"

 

Another commented to simply parrot esmort as an avenue to criticize me (which I assume the mods will take notice of)

 

I responded to esmort that if  Ballard said last year's oline was talent deficient, then he essentially told guys that are on the current roster (Haeg, Clark) Good, and other former players that he thought they were talent deficient.  IMO, If Ballard actually called the former oline talent deficient, rather than other typical "GM speak" terms, I thought that was classless, or careless at best.

 

Another quoted me to criticize me but made irrelevant comparisons, and I responded.

 

Another then asked me if I had a problem with truthful GMs (even when the truth throws the current and former players under the bus)

 

Anyway:

 

We are now left with the thought of whether or not Ballard truthfully said in a presser that he thought the previous oline was talent deficient.  And if he meant to say that, I was wondering how that statement squared with the thought that he is a class guy.  My opinion is that those two thoughts are in conflict, in that telling the press that your previous oline had a talent problem is a bit classless.

 

And these opinions don't even apply to me, because I don't think he said the oline talent was deficient in the first place.

 

Follow?  

 

You have a distinct way of talking in circles.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Huh?

 

 

There's no conflict for me or anyone else.    But apparently there is for you.....      Really?

 

Cut out the noise and it comes down to this:

 

If Ballard said he didn't say last year's line was deficient in talent, he then fails to corroborate the notion it sucked from a talent perspective. 

 

If Ballard did say it was deficient in talent, he then threw the players under the bus and he fails to corroborate the notion that he is a classy guy. 

 

I find that conflict interesting...and not problematic for me.  Simple as that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Cut out the noise and it comes down to this:

 

If Ballard said he didn't say last year's line was deficient in talent, he then fails to corroborate the notion it sucked from a talent perspective. 

 

If Ballard did say it was deficient in talent, he then threw the players under the bus and he fails to corroborate the notion that he is a classy guy. 

 

I find that conflict interesting...and not problematic for me.  Simple as that.  

Cut out the noise?  You are singing louder than anyone in here. :thinking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2019 at 10:12 PM, superrep1967 said:

He all but said we need a pass rusher and I think he'll be looking hard for one. In the draft or free agency but sounds to me like that's going to a top priority. I mean a player who can't get consistent pressure from the edge we need that desperately. 

 

We absolutely need to find a way to get pressure.  An edge rusher is really important, but what are the chances we can find a guy that provides pressure in the middle?

 

Any potential dudes that could come available in FA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, shastamasta said:

 

To be fair...it's not unusual for most draft picks to be on the roster and contributing two years after being drafted. The 2017 teams had a bunch of guys from the 2016 draft like Clark, Morrison and Green playing a lot of snaps.

 

The 2017 draft currently has three starters...Hooker, Mack and Walker. Hooker and Mack are good. Walker is a decent starting ILB...though Ballard hasn't really invested in the MIKE position. So if an opportunity to updgrade MIKE presents itself...I don't think they should hesitate. That might not be a popular opinion...just how I see it. 

 

That's a decent enough draft...especially given the circumstances. I don't think it says much about Ballard either way. It always hurts to miss out on Day Two picks...but what's done is done.

 

This upcoming draft will be very interesting...as the Colts first pick will be in the mid 20s. Does Ballard sit back and let the draft come to him? Does he trade back and to go crazy on Day Two again? Does he trade up if someone slips? 

 

I only know two things about this upcoming draft...a DL player will be taken AND I will be there to see Day Two and Day Three.

I appreciate a draft post that understands the reality of these situations.  Thanks, some of the draft posts are astonishing to me. You're right about the Mike and the Dline, look for another olineman as well, note, this doesn't contemplate FA acquisitions and losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DougDew said:

Cut out the noise and it comes down to this:

 

If Ballard said he didn't say last year's line was deficient in talent, he then fails to corroborate the notion it sucked from a talent perspective. 

 

If Ballard did say it was deficient in talent, he then threw the players under the bus and he fails to corroborate the notion that he is a classy guy. 

 

I find that conflict interesting...and not problematic for me.  Simple as that.  

Whys are you so passionate about meaningless stuff.  The whole world knows the line in aggregate was terrible last year (several years) yet a couple players remain and he's trying to respect that while being honest with fans, it's not hard to understand.  This is not even a story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, shastamasta said:

Walker is a decent starting ILB...though Ballard hasn't really invested in the MIKE position. So if an opportunity to updgrade MIKE presents itself...I don't think they should hesitate. That might not be a popular opinion...just how I see it. 

 

I'm 100% in agreement here. Walker is a decent player who has done a nice job working his way into a starting spot, but I want another rangy, athletic ILB to pair with Leonard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm 100% in agreement here. Walker is a decent player who has done a nice job working his way into a starting spot, but I want another rangy, athletic ILB to pair with Leonard.

 

Yep. They hit on a potentially HOF talent at WILL...I don't think they should settle for a decent player like Walker at MIKE. Give Leonard a legit running partner and create one of the league's best duos. 

 

Obviously finding another LB as good as Leonard will prove difficult or costly...but I think they can find someone with a similar skill set, which would make the defense better and more versatile. Then teams can't key in on Leonard...and aren't able to run their passing offenses through the middle of the field. 

 

There is a reason the Colts allowed the most receptions and yards to TEs last season. Coverage in the short-intermediate area is a part of this defense that needs to improve.

 

Don't get me wrong...Walker is definitely a solid player...a tenancious run defender who struggles in pass coverage at times. I think he would be a nice luxury to have starting at SAM (and as depth at MIKE). And it's not like SAM doesn't have a role. This teams plays matchups...and last season Adams had games where he got as many as 40% of the snaps. And with only a 5th rounder invested in Walker...it's not like they are wasting that draft pick.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

Yep. They hit on a potentially HOF talent at WILL...I don't think they should settle for a decent player like Walker at MIKE. Give Leonard a legit running partner and create one of the league's best duos. 

 

Obviously finding another LB as good as Leonard will prove difficult or costly...but I think they can find someone with a similar skill set, which would make the defense better and more versatile. Then teams can't key in on Leonard...and aren't able to run their passing offenses through the middle of the field. 

 

There is a reason the Colts allowed the most receptions and yards to TEs last season. Coverage in the short-intermediate area is a part of this defense that needs to improve.

 

Don't get me wrong...Walker is definitely a solid player...a tenancious run defender who struggles in pass coverage at times. I think he would be a nice luxury to have starting at SAM (and as depth at MIKE). And it's not like SAM doesn't have a role. This teams plays matchups...and last season Adams had games where he got as many as 40% of the snaps. And with only a 5th rounder invested in Walker...it's not like they are wasting that draft pick.

 

The other factor at LB is that Walker has the com, but he comes off the field at times. Leonard never comes off the field (only four games where he didn't play every snap, aside from the game he missed due to injury; and I bet those other missed snaps were due to injury), I think he'll have the com next season.

 

I think that will free the coaches up to play more matchup defense, hopefully come up with a dime package that isn't a total liability against the run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The other factor at LB is that Walker has the com, but he comes off the field at times. Leonard never comes off the field (only four games where he didn't play every snap, aside from the game he missed due to injury; and I bet those other missed snaps were due to injury), I think he'll have the com next season.

 

I think that will free the coaches up to play more matchup defense, hopefully come up with a dime package that isn't a total liability against the run. 

 

Yeah...I assume it's pretty rare for a rookie to have the green dot on his helmet. I think Leonard could handle it after this season.


But ideally, I would love to get Landon Collins in FA and give him the com. Like Leonard, he never leaves the field...and he was a captain for the NYG.

 

Reports seem to indicate he has a decent chance of hitting FA. Colts don't really have a ton of ties to Collins...but he should become their top priority if the shoulder is healed and the NYG let him walk. He fits exactly what Ballard is talking about when it comes to outside FAs...young (just turned 25 a few days ago), great player, great character, natural leader, etc. If he wants to come here...Ballard has to be able to close the deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems as though one can't come to this board anymore for real productive conversation without seeing DD arguing with the rest of the board. Soo negative. What a miserable life it must be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

Yeah...I assume it's pretty rare for a rookie to have the green dot on his helmet. I think Leonard could handle it after this season.


But ideally, I would love to get Landon Collins in FA and give him the com. Like Leonard, he never leaves the field...and he was a captain for the NYG.

 

Reports seem to indicate he has a decent chance of hitting FA. Colts don't really have a ton of ties to Collins...but he should become their top priority if the shoulder is healed and the NYG let him walk. He fits exactly what Ballard is talking about when it comes to outside FAs...young (just turned 25 a few days ago), great player, great character, natural leader, etc. If he wants to come here...Ballard has to be able to close the deal.

 

I'd take Collins in this scheme, and he'd be a critical piece of a good dime package. I don't care if he has the com, either, just think it needs to be a guy who never needs to leave the field. 

 

(And I think Walker maybe got more reps than he should have, because he had the com. So let's fix that.)

 

I'm working on my FA mock. Still don't have enough draft info to post, but I don't think I'll have Collins in my first version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 11:26 AM, DougDew said:

I think most examples you provided would be discussed in the context of "performance deficiency".  A "talent deficiency" speaks to the notion that you think their performance will never improve because of what they lack. 

 

That's harsh.  And its careless to say it that way in public.

Actually I think a performance deficiency is more harsh than a talent deficiency.  Performance means they didn't do their job well.  talent means they lack the attributes he is looking for.  To make it simple, if you want a guy with 4.5 speed but the current guy is a 4.7 speed guy, he may perform to the best of his abilities but doesn't have the skill or talent the position requires.

On 1/15/2019 at 11:26 AM, DougDew said:

 

Again, your criticisms of me are derived from wrong perceptions if not flat out errors. 

My criticisms of you are derived from reading you posts, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'd take Collins in this scheme, and he'd be a critical piece of a good dime package. I don't care if he has the com, either, just think it needs to be a guy who never needs to leave the field. 

 

(And I think Walker maybe got more reps than he should have, because he had the com. So let's fix that.)

 

I'm working on my FA mock. Still don't have enough draft info to post, but I don't think I'll have Collins in my first version.

 

Much like Demarcus Lawrence, it's impossible to predict premium FAs being available, much less signing with your team.

 

I still remember the countless offseason mocks that included Melvin Ingram a coupler years back...only to see him eventually re-up with the LAC.

 

But IMO, S should be a focus of the offseason. FA is fairly deep, regardless of Collins, and it's one of those positions (like interior OL) where you can actually reasonably upgrade in FA because of the players available. So while I could see 1-2 of the current Ss brought back for depth and continuity...Collins or Mathieu as the other starting S would be the place to start. And then I would draft an athletic, lengthy S type on Day 3 that can defends TEs and develop him at the nickel S spot.

 

Interested to see your mock offseason. The upcoming FA and draft could align very nicely with the Colts needs. Here are just a few ways"

 

S - FA options like Landon Collins, Tyrann Mathieu, Lamarcus Joyner

DL - FA options like Demarcus Lawrence, Dante Fowler, Frank Clark...loaded draft class

ILB - FA options like Jordan Hicks (yes please) and Cory Littleton, Patrick Onwuasor (trade option if they sign re-sign CJ Mosely)

WR - deep draft group

OT - not really sure

 

And then there's always trading for players...either players on rookie deals or by leveraging the cap space. So in theory, the Colts can (and should) add as many 5-6 new starters this offseason.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

But IMO, S should be a focus of the offseason. FA is fairly deep, regardless of Collins, and it's one of those positions (like interior OL) where you can actually reasonably upgrade in FA because of the players available. So while I could see 1-2 of the current Ss brought back for depth and continuity...Collins or Mathieu as the other starting S would be the place to start. And then I would draft an athletic, lengthy S type on Day 3 that can defends TEs and develop him at the nickel S spot.

 

I'm on board with this, except Mathieu.

 

What do you think they do with Geathers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, DougDew said:

LOL, that's my basic reaction to this entire page.

 

I don't think you get the gist of the conversation that took place at the top of the page.  That's okay.  Its really only about one thing, whether or not Ballard threw last year's oline players under the bus.  I'll summarize:

 

I recapped the presser, and noted that Ballard, IMO, said that he DIDN'T think the oline was "talent deficient" last year.  I pointed that out since I thought that was interesting on some levels.

 

esmort very cordially explained that I misinterpreted what Ballard said, and in so many words, Ballard DID indirectly call last year's oline "talent deficient"

 

Another commented to simply parrot esmort as an avenue to criticize me 

 

I responded to esmort that if  Ballard said last year's oline was talent deficient, then he essentially told guys that are on the current roster (Haeg, Clark) Good, and other former players that he thought they were talent deficient.  IMO, If Ballard actually called the former oline talent deficient, rather than other typical "GM speak" terms, I thought that was classless, or careless at best.

 

Another quoted me to criticize me but made irrelevant comparisons, and I responded.

 

Another then asked me if I had a problem with truthful GMs (even when the truth throws the current and former players under the bus)

 

Anyway:

 

We are now left with the thought of whether or not Ballard truthfully said in a presser that he thought the previous oline was talent deficient.  And if he meant to say that, I was wondering how that statement squared with the thought that he is a class guy.  My opinion is that those two thoughts are in conflict, in that telling the press that your previous oline had a talent problem is a bit classless.

 

And these opinions don't even apply to me, because I don't think he said the oline talent was deficient in the first place.

 

Follow?  

 

 

Do I follow?     No.     Not at all.    

 

It appears you're trying to have it both ways.   On one hand saying Ballard is a classy guy and on the other,  saying he insulted guys like Haeg, Clark, Good,  so for doing that he's NOT a classy guy.

 

He didn't insult those guys.    He kept them on the team.   But he didn't really insult anyone.  The guys he commented on (without naming them)  were the FA C/G from Tennessee (Brian ???) we signed a year ago who didn't make the final 53...    he commented on Banner (though NOT by name)  who didn't make the final 53 and the person he insulted MOST OF ALL...   was himself for doing a poor job.

 

Ballard takes full and complete responsibility.    He makes no negative comment about any individual.    He speaks broadly and generically about players.    And ultimately, he takes the bullet becomes the bottom line is....   that the bottom line ends with him.    He owns it.

 

I'm not sure what more anyone could want?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, DougDew said:

Cut out the noise and it comes down to this:

 

If Ballard said he didn't say last year's line was deficient in talent, he then fails to corroborate the notion it sucked from a talent perspective. 

 

If Ballard did say it was deficient in talent, he then threw the players under the bus and he fails to corroborate the notion that he is a classy guy. 

 

I find that conflict interesting...and not problematic for me.  Simple as that.  

 

There's no noise here from me.    None at all.

 

But you're unique ability to twist things into a narrative that only you see is the issue.

 

As I noted in another post,  you want it both ways.     That way you're covered no matter how history turns out.    You'll always be right no matter what.     That's the noise issue here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I'm on board with this, except Mathieu.

 

What do you think they do with Geathers?

 

I know what I would do. I would sit back and watch how his market develops. If he still sitting around without a contract in late March-April...then I would offer him a one-year deal, even if I had another option already in place. 

 

Last year, a few Ss had trouble landing the contracts they wanted...so I wouldn't jump the gun and re-sign Geathers right away.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.