Ballard Speaks Prior to Combine

[Barry Sears]

I hope this link works - https://www.facebook.com/colts/videos/2158397220883471/?sk=h_chr

 

Loved his remark as he walked off the podium...see if you catch it when you watch.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Says they want Geathers back and will be meeting with him again this week.

[Barry Sears]

I do wish they had microphones available for the press so we could hear the questions.  Have to guess what they asked based upon his answers.

[richard pallo]

Interesting interview.  One comment that stuck out to me was made with about five minutes left. I think it was about a particular FA that he can not comment on.  I couldn't hear the question.  He said something to the effect of even though we already have a good player at a position but we have the opportunity to bring a player in at that position that could put us over the top they will.  I guess that leaves the door open to a lot of possibilities.  

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I could listen to him all day. Lol. The end when he said not one luck question was hillarious and has to be so nice.

 

 

[gspdx]

17 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Interesting interview.  One comment that stuck out to me was made with about five minutes left. I think it was about a particular FA that he can not comment on.  I couldn't hear the question.  He said something to the effect of even though we already have a good player at a position but we have the opportunity to bring a player in at that position that could put us over the top they will.  I guess that leaves the door open to a lot of possibilities.  

I think you need to keep a statement like that in context to the rest of the rules/guidelines that Ballard follows:

 

1. Don't expect the Colts to overpay

2. Don't expect the Colts to get a guy who doesn't fit in the locker room

3. Don't expect the Colts to get a guy who isn't committed to the team

4. Don't expect the Colts to pass up improving at a position if the right guy is available (assuming it works within 1 - 3)

 

I'm sure there are other rules/guidelines he follows but that is what jumped in my head.

[jskinnz]

24 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Interesting interview.  One comment that stuck out to me was made with about five minutes left. I think it was about a particular FA that he can not comment on.  I couldn't hear the question.  He said something to the effect of even though we already have a good player at a position but we have the opportunity to bring a player in at that position that could put us over the top they will.  I guess that leaves the door open to a lot of possibilities.  

 

I am 10,000% positive he meant Bell.

[Four2itus]

This thread had me at..."Ballard speaks..."

[aaron11]

15 minutes ago, gspdx said:

I think you need to keep a statement like that in context to the rest of the rules/guidelines that Ballard follows:

 

1. Don't expect the Colts to overpay

2. Don't expect the Colts to get a guy who doesn't fit in the locker room

3. Don't expect the Colts to get a guy who isn't committed to the team

4. Don't expect the Colts to pass up improving at a position if the right guy is available (assuming it works within 1 - 3)

they all say stuff like that, somebody is going to sign the big names though 

[jvan1973]

21 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

I am 10,000% positive he meant Bell.

Only 10,000?

[Dark Superman]

Feels pretty damn good having a GM and Coach that have their players backs!

[Exodus]

34 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

I am 10,000% positive he meant Bell.

Interesting. What is your thought process behind this? Bell is absolutely an upgrade, but his character and locker room presence are quite literally the opposite of what Ballard looks for. I'd almost say he could have been talking about Landon Collins. Especially given the Geathers conversation earlier in that interview 

[jvan1973]

1 minute ago, Exodus said:

Interesting. What is your thought process behind this? Bell is absolutely an upgrade, but his character and locker room presence are quite literally the opposite of what Ballard looks for. I'd almost say he could have been talking about Landon Collins. Especially given the Geathers conversation earlier in that interview 

Pretty sure jskinnz was being sarcastic

[Exodus]

5 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Pretty sure jskinnz was being sarcastic

Oof, you're probably right. It has been a long afternoon. 

[richard pallo]

36 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

I am 10,000% positive he meant Bell.

Agreed.  I'm pretty sure the original question was about Bell and of course he can not talk about a specific player under contract.  It really is a shame we can't hear the questions.  But Bell certainly fits the definition of a player that could put a team over the top.  Mack is a good player but Bell is a great player so 2+2 =4.  No need to read between the lines.  I think we will be one of the teams talking to Bell.  Not sure we will get him but I think we will be negotiating.  Wouldn't be surprised if it's happening right now during the "illegal tampering period".   Fun times coming.  

[richard pallo]

27 minutes ago, Exodus said:

Interesting. What is your thought process behind this? Bell is absolutely an upgrade, but his character and locker room presence are quite literally the opposite of what Ballard looks for. I'd almost say he could have been talking about Landon Collins. Especially given the Geathers conversation earlier in that interview 

Collins is a good player and I would like to see him as a Colt.  But He doesn't fit the definition of a player who could put a team over the top IMO.  Playmakers do that.  

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Apparently they are going to let Desir and Inman test the free agent market but Ballard says he wants them back. At their age I imagine I’d another team is close in price they would come back to Indy for slightly less just to come back to  winning team.

 

There has been no interest in Brissett Ballard said.

[RNGDShobby]

I love his remarks on Mack. Mainly as a dynasty owner but also because he knows he doesnt need to spend on Bell.

[chad72]

16 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Agreed.  I'm pretty sure the original question was about Bell and of course he can not talk about a specific player under contract.  It really is a shame we can't hear the questions.  But Bell certainly fits the definition of a player that could put a team over the top.  Mack is a good player but Bell is a great player so 2+2 =4.  No need to read between the lines.  I think we will be one of the teams talking to Bell.  Not sure we will get him but I think we will be negotiating.  Wouldn't be surprised if it's happening right now during the "illegal tampering period".   Fun times coming.  

 

Would Bell just take a 2 year deal for $20 mil., all guaranteed, to play alongside Mack in an RBC?? What do you think?? That is the only way I think he becomes a Colt. 

[shasta519]

34 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Collins is a good player and I would like to see him as a Colt.  But He doesn't fit the definition of a player who could put a team over the top IMO.  Playmakers do that.  

 

I don't know about that. Compared to Geathers...Collins is absolutely a playmaker. And Collins instead of Geathers is the type of move that could help put a team over the top. They aren't even comparable in terms of value and impact:

 

Collins (career) - 8 INTs, 22 TFL, 4 SACKS, 3 FF, 321 SOLO TACKLES

Geathers (career) - 0 INT, 3 TFL, O SACKS, 3 FF, 137 SOLO TACKLES

 

Yes, Collins has played more games (cause he has been much healthier)...but even if we doubled Geathers games (and stats)...he doesn't come close. And Collins is nearly two years younger.

[MTC]

Chris Ballard also interviewed with Dan Dakich:

https://www.1070thefan.com/dandakichshow

[shasta519]

31 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Would Bell just take a 2 year deal for $20 mil., all guaranteed, to play alongside Mack in an RBC?? What do you think?? That is the only way I think he becomes a Colt. 

 

I want Coleman. Not sure what his market would look like...but he's a great fit. I would be willing to do 2/$15-16M...basically the Ebron deal.

[krunk]

12 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

I want Coleman. Not sure what his market would look like...but he's a great fit. I would be willing to do 2/$15-16M...basically the Ebron deal.

I thought about Tevin Coleman some myself, although I think he and Mack are somewhat clones of each other.  Coleman runs a bit tougher.  I'd be cool with the two of them.

[coltsfeva]

   One comment I thought was interesting was they were looking for players that wanted to win more than padding their stats. Which doesn’t sound like Antonio Brown.

[richard pallo]

17 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

I want Coleman. Not sure what his market would look like...but he's a great fit. I would be willing to do 2/$15-16M...basically the Ebron deal.

If Ballard stays with the RBC I think Coleman would be a great fit and would upgrade the group. 

[richard pallo]

55 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Would Bell just take a 2 year deal for $20 mil., all guaranteed, to play alongside Mack in an RBC?? What do you think?? That is the only way I think he becomes a Colt. 

Of course not.  He will be the feature three down back wherever he goes.  As he should be.  If Ballard wants to stay RBC so be it. 

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:

There has been no interest in Brissett Ballard said.

Good, lets put that trade thing to rest

[Mr.NotSoCreative]

He made a nice comment of the guys that are already in the locker room, and they also are sitting back and watching what Ballard is doing for their team, the guys he is bringing in, into the culture they are all participating in building. Of course Im sure he doesnt ask their opinions, but I really like the thought that it is part of his own decisions on personnel. He will get us stars, but not the ones that upset the balance. We are in good hands here.

[shasta519]

38 minutes ago, krunk said:

I thought about Tevin Coleman some myself, although I think he and Mack are somewhat clones of each other.  Coleman runs a bit tougher.  I'd be cool with the two of them.

 

I think Coleman offers much more in the passing game. Basically they would be a 1A and 1B with Hines getting some snaps each game. But injuries always happen...so it would be great to be able to rely on either one if one gets hurt.

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

It really did not sound like they were as "Absolutely not!" on Lev Bell as most of the posters here would have you believe. Sounded more like it would be something that could possibly be explored as an option. Although, he did say earlier in the interview that they loved Mack and thought he was a 3 down back. It is impressive the yardage and TD numbers he was able to put up while missing 4 games, but those numbers are skewed a little because he beat up on some bad run D's, and had some really non-existent games...don't think you would ever have that with Lev. Gonna be an interesting offseason! 

[aaron11]

2 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

I am 10,000% positive he meant Bell.

yeah that does sound like it could have been about him.  also could have been talking about flowers

[shasta519]

6 minutes ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

It really did not sound like they were as "Absolutely not!" on Lev Bell as most of the posters here would have you believe. Sounded more like it would be something that could possibly be explored as an option. Although, he did say earlier in the interview that they loved Mack and thought he was a 3 down back. It is impressive the yardage and TD numbers he was able to put up while missing 4 games, but those numbers are skewed a little because he beat up on some bad run D's, and had some really non-existent games...don't think you would ever have that with Lev. Gonna be an interesting offseason! 

 

And what do we expect Ballard to say about current starters? That they don't believe in them. 

 

I think this can be applied to most positions, outside of QB and OL.

[CurBeatElite]

3 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Interesting interview.  One comment that stuck out to me was made with about five minutes left. I think it was about a particular FA that he can not comment on.  I couldn't hear the question.  He said something to the effect of even though we already have a good player at a position but we have the opportunity to bring a player in at that position that could put us over the top they will.  I guess that leaves the door open to a lot of possibilities.  

 

The interviewer says Marlon's name in his question.  Ballard calls it a loaded question.  I think he just made a very general statement which is probably true about all positions on the team.  If he thinks the team can improve and we can upgrade at a position with a free agent to help get this team to get over the top, and it turns out fitting for us, then we will consider doing it.  That's a general blanket statement spoken by a very professional GM.

 

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

Agreed.  I'm pretty sure the original question was about Bell and of course he can not talk about a specific player under contract.  It really is a shame we can't hear the questions.  But Bell certainly fits the definition of a player that could put a team over the top.  Mack is a good player but Bell is a great player so 2+2 =4.  No need to read between the lines.  I think we will be one of the teams talking to Bell.  Not sure we will get him but I think we will be negotiating.  Wouldn't be surprised if it's happening right now during the "illegal tampering period".   Fun times coming.  

 

Ballard, near the beginning of the interview says the team has a lot of faith in Mack and believes Mack is a 3 down back.  The only word I can hear from the interviewer is "Marlon", so I do believe this question was about Bell.  However, I don't think we're going to take Bell this off season.  I also don't think Bell is under contract, as he didn't show up to sign his franchise tag last year.  That said, I don't think we can start talking about specific players outside of our organization until the official FA period begins.

[CurBeatElite]

3 hours ago, Barry Sears said:

I hope this link works - https://www.facebook.com/colts/videos/2158397220883471/?sk=h_chr

 

Loved his remark as he walked off the podium...see if you catch it when you watch.

 

"Not one Luck question... are you kidding me?"  I assume that is what you're referring to.

 

It must be night and day for Ballard this off-season after Luck showed he's back to being himself.  I imagine at this point last year there were pressers where Ballard walked away thinking "Not one question not regarding Luck..."

[aaron11]

5 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

  I also don't think Bell is under contract, as he didn't show up to sign his franchise tag last year.  That said, I don't think we can start talking about specific players outside of our organization until the official FA period begins.

he is still technically a steeler, if he was a free agent then anyone could sign him now

[Moosejawcolt]

3 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

I am 10,000% positive he meant Bell.

I doubt he was talking bout Bell.  The organization seems pretty sold on Mack being an every down back.  Listen to Ballard's comments

[CurBeatElite]

6 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

he is still technically a steeler, if he were a free agent anyone could sign him now

 

My fault.  I assumed since he did not sign his franchise tag and did not report that he was just ineligible under NFL rules to negotiate with other teams until the following FA period (almost like a punishment for not agreeing with the franchise tag).  Either way, I think it's technically considered 'tampering' to be talking about bringing players from outside of your franchise who are not eligible to begin negotiations until FA opens.

 

3 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

I doubt he was talking bout Bell.  The organization seems pretty sold on Mack being an every down back.  Listen to Ballard's comments

 

Pump up the volume on the question.  I can hear this:  "You talked before about how well Marlon has performed.  He was not a high draft pick and you got a lot out of him....  Could you foresee with the amount of cap you have a circumstance in which you may (inaudible) at that position?" 

 

And Ballard responds by cutting him off, "I know where you're getting at here.  First thing is I'm not going to comment on that loaded comment you just fired at me.  I will say this.... even if we have a good player in a certain position, if we think this new one (i.e., FA) can put us over the top, we'll make the move."

 

The question was definitely going after Bell, and Ballard stopped it short and made a very blanket statement which is probably true for every position on this team.  I wouldn't read much into it.  It was a reporter trying to make news and Ballard responding in a vague, yet professional way.  Nothing more, nothing less (IMO).

 

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

What is it with if someone isn’t a high draft pick they suck . Doesn’t matter if they come in and play way better then their draft status. If someone is good they are good. It doesn’t matter where they were drafted. All it means is teams missed on how good someone was.

[jvan1973]

2 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Collins is a good player and I would like to see him as a Colt.  But He doesn't fit the definition of a player who could put a team over the top IMO.  Playmakers do that.  

How many playmakers did the Steelers have?  

[HarryTheCat]

2 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

Would Bell just take a 2 year deal for $20 mil., all guaranteed, to play alongside Mack in an RBC?? What do you think?? That is the only way I think he becomes a Colt. 

Bell turned up his nose at the $14.5MM franchise tag last year and chose to sit it out rather than take nearly a million bucks per game. I think he has it in his mind that he's worth something close to $20MM per year for three years, with a substantial percentage, or all of it, guaranteed. There may be some GM out there who loses his mind and comes close to that, but I wouldn't expect Ballard to be that guy. Paying Bell that kind of money for part-time work, splitting snaps with Mack, would probably be ample evidence to have him committed.