Ballard Speaks Prior to Combine

[crazycolt1]

5 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

... because he has said he wouldn't. And that's all we have to base off of. 

 

He traded down because he knew one of the 3 premium players he wanted would be there... and he acquired picks (darts) which happens to be exactly what he says he wants to do each draft. Acquire picks and see what sticks. Not trade them away for one player.

 

What makes you think he won't trade our 26 pick DOWN to acquire more picks (again, like he says he wants to)... 

Like I said, you take what Ballard says too literal.  He has one draft when he moved down. That does not set in stone what he will do in the future.

[ColtStrong2013]

What you are asking is to put unnecessary risk on this organization. Trading up is always a tremendous risk. Always. Trading down has been proven to be the conservative way to build a team. Why take unnecessary risks when what you believe in and have been practicing is obviously working? Bringing in LeVeon Bell or Brown is unnecessary risk. If you believe we can find better value (like Marlon Mack in the 4th round, or Ebron on a cap friendly deal in FA) why take those risks? We are watching a GM build a championship roster the right way. With young hungry FA's that are signing for less than what they produce on the field and most importantly extremely talented draft picks that are high character guys... 

 

Less risk. High reward. Don't reach in the draft. Acquire picks. See what sticks... 

[ColtStrong2013]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

Like I said, you take what Ballard says too literal.  He has one draft when he moved down. That does not set in stone what he will do in the future.

 

I didn't say he would trade down. But it's more likely than him trading up. 

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

What you are asking is to put unnecessary risk on this organization. Trading up is always a tremendous risk. Always. Trading down has been proven to be the conservative way to build a team. Why take unnecessary risks when what you believe in and have been practicing is obviously working? Bringing in LeVeon Bell or Brown is unnecessary risk. If you believe we can find better value (like Marlon Mack in the 4th round, or Ebron on a cap friendly deal in FA) why take those risks? We are watching a GM build a championship roster the right way. With young hungry FA's that are signing for less than what they produce on the field and most importantly extremely talented draft picks that are high character guys... 

 

Less risk. High reward. Don't reach in the draft. Acquire picks. See what sticks... 

See above.

[ColtStrong2013]

4 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

See above.

 

7 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

That does not set in stone what he will do in the future.

 

Of course it doesn't. But until he states that he thinks our talent is where it needs to be or at least getting where it needs to be, I will take his word of acquiring picks seriously. I don't think you take what he see "literal" enough. He's pretty transparent. 

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

I didn't say he would trade down. But it's more likely than him trading up. 

Not if that player they wanted bad enough can be traded up to get.

Last year he had the #3 pick  to work with. Big difference this year.

[ColtStrong2013]

13 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Not if that player they wanted bad enough can be traded up to get.

Last year he had the #3 pick  to work with. Big difference this year.

 

You are putting a pretty high value on somebody for them to "want badly enough"... Especially if they feel very good about who will be there at 26 and 34... 

[crazycolt1]

14 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

You are putting a pretty high value on somebody for them to "want badly enough"... Especially if they feel very good about who will be there at 26 and 34... 

 Lets say an elite player falls to pick 10?  If that player was a player they thought could come in and be a game changer. Why wouldn't Ballad try to make a deal? That is his job. To get the best possible players he can. Hording picks can hurt more than passing up on a player if that player has the talent to make a difference.

The thing is you think you know Ballard and what his pattern is but yet he has only had two drafts so there is not a pattern made just yet. Flexibility is needed for all GMs. 

It is Ballard's responsibility to bring the best possible players in and if that means trading up IMO he would do it.  There are lots of different ways to move up and down in the draft.

[Dark Superman]

I could listen to him talk football all day long.

[Jackie Daytona]

14 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

... because he has said he wouldn't. And that's all we have to base off of. 

 

He traded down because he knew one of the 3 premium players he wanted would be there... and he acquired picks (darts) which happens to be exactly what he says he wants to do each draft. Acquire picks and see what sticks. Not trade them away for one player.

 

What makes you think he won't trade our 26 pick DOWN to acquire more picks (again, like he says he wants to)... 

Please provide the quote where he said he would never trade up in a draft.... Though I get what point I believe you are trying to make.... I think you might be mistaken here....  I might be wrong, but I doubt a manager of his caliber would make a statement that is tantamount to completely removing any option from the table.....

[NewColtsFan]

14 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Like I said, you take what Ballard says too literal.  He has one draft when he moved down. That does not set in stone what he will do in the future.

 

Sorry....    two drafts where he traded down.

 

He traded down in 2017 at least once in the 4th round for extra picks.   He may have even done it twice.

 

And in 2018...   he traded down in the first round.   He also traded down 3 spots on the 2nd round and then took Turay and he traded down several times on Day 3 to pick up extra picks in the 5th and 7th rounds.

 

So, both drafts and at least least 5 trade downs...  maybe 6.    The one time he traded up was in 18.   Moving up 3 slots to draft Lewis with the last pick in the 2nd round.  

 

Hope this helps any dispute...   would agree that nothing is set in stone with Ballatd.   But I believe he would mostly prefer more draft picks and that would typically mean trading down.

 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Sorry....    two drafts where he traded down.

 

He traded down in 2017 at least once in the 4th round for extra picks.   He may have even done it twice.

 

And in 2018...   he traded down in the first round.   He also traded down 3 spots on the 2nd round and then took Turay and he traded down several times on Day 3 to pick up extra picks in the 5th and 7th rounds.

 

So, both drafts and at least least 5 trade downs...  maybe 6.    The one time he traded up was in 18.   Moving up 3 slots to draft Lewis with the last pick in the 2nd round.  

 

Hope this helps any dispute...   would agree that nothing is set in stone with Ballatd.   But I believe he would mostly prefer more draft picks and that would typically mean trading down.

 

There is no dispute. 

My statement is if the right player dropped a little and Ballard wants him he would make the move to get him. Yes he likes having his draft picks but as a GM he also has to look at the talent above and below his picks.

Example: If one of the elite pass rushers drops lets say to pick 10 or 12. Realistically that could happen in this draft.   IMO he would pursue that player. Collecting draft capital works both ways. Up and down.

 

[jskinnz]

13 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

There is no dispute. 

My statement is if the right player dropped a little and Ballard wants him he would make the move to get him. Yes he likes having his draft picks but as a GM he also has to look at the talent above and below his picks.

Example: If one of the elite pass rushers drops lets say to pick 10 or 12. Realistically that could happen in this draft.   IMO he would pursue that player. Collecting draft capital works both ways. Up and down.

 

 

Personally I think your example cited here - a move from 26 to 10 or 12 - has no chance of happening.  The draft capital required to make such a move would make it cost prohibitive.  I am guessing it would be the 2020 first round pick as well and I have a really hard time seeing him giving up that much.  He has such strong convictions in the ability of he and his scouts to find players that I believe he would not make such a big move up.

 

Smaller moves within later rounds where the cost is not so high - sure.  

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, jskinnz said:

 

Personally I think your example cited here - a move from 26 to 10 or 12 - has no chance of happening.  The draft capital required to make such a move would make it cost prohibitive.  I am guessing it would be the 2020 first round pick as well and I have a really hard time seeing him giving up that much.  He has such strong convictions in the ability of he and his scouts to find players that I believe he would not make such a big move up.

 

Smaller moves within later rounds where the cost is not so high - sure.  

Why couldn't it be this years pick 26 be involved?  Like I said, draft capital can be used to move up or down. It is not restricted to only move down.

Putting Ballard in a box and then thinking you know what he will do is a mistake.

For two years he has heads scratching picks to the fan base. Other than the obvious 1st rd picks, from the 2 round down he did not pick one player that most anticipated.

You think you have him figured out?  Nah, I don't think so.

[jskinnz]

28 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Why couldn't it be this years pick 26 be involved?  Like I said, draft capital can be used to move up or down. It is not restricted to only move down.

Putting Ballard in a box and then thinking you know what he will do is a mistake.

For two years he has heads scratching picks to the fan base. Other than the obvious 1st rd picks, from the 2 round down he did not pick one player that most anticipated.

You think you have him figured out?  Nah, I don't think so.

 

1. Why do you always get confrontational?  Everything is high noon with you and EVERYONE on here.

2. I am saying to move to 10 the asking price for a potential trade partner would be # 26 this year and  next year's # 1 as well.  I kind of thought that was obvious.  For evidence - see Saints and Marcus Davenport trade.

3. I am not putting Ballard in a box.  Just simply saying the evidence suggests a move that large is unlikely.

4. Do I think I have him figured out - well he does kind of tell you what he values. But that does not mean he can't surprise however unlikely.

 

 

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, jskinnz said:

 

1. Why do you always get confrontational?  Everything is high noon with you and EVERYONE on here.

2. I am saying to move to 10 the asking price for a potential trade partner would be # 26 this year and  next year's # 1 as well.  I kind of thought that was obvious.  For evidence - see Saints and Marcus Davenport trade.

3. I am not putting Ballard in a box.  Just simply saying the evidence suggests a move that large is unlikely.

4. Do I think I have him figured out - well he does kind of tell you what he values. But that does not mean he can't surprise however unlikely.

 

 

Maybe it is you who is being confrontational?

Everyone thinks they have Ballard figured out but I don't think they do.

No I don't think Ballard would trade two first round picks to move up 10 spots. But it is possible for him to trade this years #1 and a 2nd or 3rd rd pick as a package deal. 

Like I said earlier, draft capital can be used to move up or down.

I don't understand why you or anyone else don't understand that?

The only thing that is evident is no one knows what he is going to do. His history has shown that.

[jskinnz]

30 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Maybe it is you who is being confrontational?

Everyone thinks they have Ballard figured out but I don't think they do.

No I don't think Ballard would trade two first round picks to move up 10 spots. But it is possible for him to trade this years #1 and a 2nd or 3rd rd pick as a package deal. 

Like I said earlier, draft capital can be used to move up or down.

I don't understand why you or anyone else don't understand that?

The only thing that is evident is no one knows what he is going to do. His history has shown that.

 

Dear God...

 

I was specifically referencing the trade possibility you suggested - 26 to 10 as unlikely.

 

I am fully aware of how draft capital can be used.  I am not sure where you think I don't get that.  In fact in my my first response to you I suggested that a move up in later rounds, where it is not so costly, is possible.  He's done that before.  We also saw him move down last year in round 1.  So I am aware that movement is possible, in fact even likely.  Just your suggested move WON'T happen.  No team is going to give up a top 10 pick to move back 16 spots and only get a 2nd or 3rd round pick back.  Again - see Marcus Davenport trade.  The Saints had to give the Packers their # 27 pick in 2018 and their first rounder this year to move up to # 14 last year.

 

 

[crazycolt1]

3 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

Dear God...

 

I was specifically referencing the trade possibility you suggested - 26 to 10 as unlikely.

 

I am fully aware of how draft capital can be used.  I am not sure where you think I don't get that.  In fact in my my first response to you I suggested that a move up in later rounds, where it is not so costly, is possible.  He's done that before.  We also saw him move down last year in round 1.  So I am aware that movement is possible, in fact even likely.  Just your suggested move WON'T happen.  No team is going to give up a top 10 pick to move back 16 spots and only get a 2nd or 3rd round pick back.  Again - see Marcus Davenport trade.  The Saints had to give the Packers their # 27 pick in 2018 and their first rounder this year to move up to # 14 last year.

 

 

What the Saints did has no bearing on what the Colts do or don't do.

My point is and I have said from the start is if there is a player the Colts want bad enough higher in any round including the first they will do what it takes to get him.

There is nothing wrong with saying that but you and a couple of other seem to think you know better.

That's fine. Believe what you want. 

Ballard has two draft under his belt. There is no pattern that has been set. Just because he did one thing in one draft does not mean that is what is going to happen in another. Each draft is different and Ballard will be looking for different players than he did last year. The roster has changed just like this years draft will.

What Ballard has said in his pressers is exactly what he said in last years pressers. It is standard coach/GM speak. Even down to the dart comment. Ballard is a wonderful speaker. That is great for a GM but let's not act like his pressers are made for anything other than pleasing the fans.

Don't take my comment as a put down to Ballard as that is not what they are. I like Ballard as well as any GM we have ever had including Polian.

If there is a game changer it is Ballard's responsibility to do what it takes to get him. With that said I didn't mean trade the farm or anything ridiculously stupid.

This idea that Ballard would never trade up to get a player wanted is ridiculous. Hoarding players by by-passing better talented players is also ridiculous.  I am quite sure he would rather have one game changer than two depth players. Especially if he thought that player fit what he calls the core.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

36 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

What the Saints did has no bearing on what the Colts do or don't do.

 

There is no pattern that has been set.

 

I disagree.  The Saints followed the pattern of using the value chart for draft picks, like every other team.  I highly doubt Ballard is going to pull a "Ditka" and throw out the value chart just to get one player.

 

39 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

My point is and I have said from the start is if there is a player the Colts want bad enough higher in any round including the first they will do what it takes to get him.

 

If there is a game changer it is Ballard's responsibility to do what it takes to get him. With that said I didn't mean trade the farm or anything ridiculously stupid.

 

You're contradicting yourself.  Ditka "did what it took" to get Ricky Williams because he thought it was his "responsibility" to get a "game changer" even though it was stupid to do so.  I highly doubt Ballard ever pulls a Ditka.

[Four2itus]

4 hours ago, jskinnz said:

Dear God...

 

I was specifically referencing the trade possibility you suggested - 26 to 10 as unlikely.

Exactly.

 

So the 10 spot has a value of 1300...the 26 has a value of 720.If we improve our season ending record, it its likely that this represents this AND next years first pick. Lower picks carry such a drop in value, it would cost a lot of darts to add up to 1300. 

 

I agree totally. The likelihood of this trade is so close to zero. 

 

Trade value chart

 

However, moving up to say 19, where the value starts to drop in 25 point increments? This I see as a realistic event, although still highly unlikely. 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I disagree.  The Saints followed the pattern of using the value chart for draft picks, like every other team.  I highly doubt Ballard is going to pull a "Ditka" and throw out the value chart just to get one player.

 

 

You're contradicting yourself.  Ditka "did what it took" to get Ricky Williams because he thought it was his "responsibility" to get a "game changer" even though it was stupid to do so.  I highly doubt Ballard ever pulls a Ditka.

If you would have read all of my comment I said Ballard wouldn't do something ridiculous or stupid. No where did I insinuate trading a whole draft away for one player.

I think you know me better that that.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Four2itus said:

Exactly.

 

So the 10 spot has a value of 1300...the 26 has a value of 720.If we improve our season ending record, it its likely that this represents this AND next years first pick. Lower picks carry such a drop in value, it would cost a lot of darts to add up to 1300. 

 

I agree totally. The likelihood of this trade is so close to zero. 

 

Trade value chart

 

However, moving up to say 19, where the value starts to drop in 25 point increments? This I see as a realistic event, although still highly unlikely. 

I used 10-12 as just a number to throw out there.

I still say if there was one player the Colts wanted bad enough Ballard would work something out. I know he likes his draft picks but he is still a GM and has to bring the best talent he can find.

There will be some good players at 26 but as we all know these drafts very rarely go as fans and  the so called experts say they are going to go.

WE have no clue on what Ballard's draft board will look like. For two years he hasn't come close to matching what the fan thought he was going to do.

A couple of first round picks like Nelson came as no surprise but after it went to players that wasn't even on the radar of some fans. Even after the Nelson pick there was some who were in disbelieve and very unhappy we took an offensive lineman that early in the draft.

My main point is it is not out of the realm or possibility that Ballard would trade up to get a player the staff wanted bad enough. 

 

[ColtStrong2013]

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I used 10-12 as just a number to throw out there.

I still say if there was one player the Colts wanted bad enough Ballard would work something out. I know he likes his draft picks but he is still a GM and has to bring the best talent he can find.

There will be some good players at 26 but as we all know these drafts very rarely go as fans and  the so called experts say they are going to go.

WE have no clue on what Ballard's draft board will look like. For two years he hasn't come close to matching what the fan thought he was going to do.

A couple of first round picks like Nelson came as no surprise but after it went to players that wasn't even on the radar of some fans. Even after the Nelson pick there was some who were in disbelieve and very unhappy we took an offensive lineman that early in the draft.

My main point is it is not out of the realm or possibility that Ballard would trade up to get a player the staff wanted bad enough. 

 

 

No one in that realm of the draft is looking to trade down to 26... Unless it's one hell of a deal. And Ballard ain't going to be the one doing it. I know you are stuck on this, but it ain't happening. 

[ColtStrong2013]

13 hours ago, Shafty138 said:

Please provide the quote where he said he would never trade up in a draft.... Though I get what point I believe you are trying to make.... I think you might be mistaken here....  I might be wrong, but I doubt a manager of his caliber would make a statement that is tantamount to completely removing any option from the table.....

 

I didn't say in my post that he said he never would. That's you putting false words into my mouth. I said he has said he wouldn't while they are young and looking to acquire picks. Every Indy media writer has been throwing this on twitter all week long. 

 

"Ballard was asked about trading draft picks, with the Colts currently having 9 selections this April, including 4 in the first four rounds. “I like them picks,” the third-year GM said with a smile. “On draft day, you formulate a plan of who you have targeted, where you can get them... I’ve always been under the premise and how I was taught in this league, the more picks you have, the more darts you have at the draft board, the more chances you have to hit on players. Is our roster to a point where I think we can just go and draft three players? No. I think we still need to continue to add young talent. We like having draft picks.”

 

Hence, he isn't trading picks away at this early point in his career when he needs all the picks he can get. It reduces his risk and increases his chances of hitting on players in the draft, which is where the focal point is. 

[ColtStrong2013]

From 2017-

 

"We will not be timid about moving around in the draft,” Ballard said last week in Phoenix. “Will it happen? I don’t know. There’s some years we said that in Kansas City and we didn’t make one trade. And then last year we bebopped around a few times in the draft.

“You’ve got to have a partner that’s willing to trade with and you have to be willing to work out the compensation. We are definitely open to trading back in this draft and we have to make sure when we do it, we still have the right players on the board targeted.”

 

His comments in the post above and in comments earlier in the year show he has a similar mindset. We are always going to be building through the draft, BUT, when you are still building up a roster (and don't forget that we are still relatively lacking on our talent across the board), you look to trade back to keep acquiring picks and better chances at building through your draft. 

 

I do believe at some point in the future (possibly within the next 2 years) we might look to trade up for a premium pick/player. It just isn't this year... probably not next. We are going to bring 9, maybe 10 when it's said and done, more talented players to this roster this April. No less. 

[DougDew]

58 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

From 2017-

 

 

“You’ve got to have a partner that’s willing to trade with and you have to be willing to work out the compensation. We are definitely open to trading back in this draft and we have to make sure when we do it, we still have the right players on the board targeted.”

 

 

If Polian would have said something like that publicly, I would have expected Polian to be looking to trade UP, knowing Polian.   

 

In the end, I think anything a GM says this time of year always leaves enough room for them to do the exact opposite from what they conveyed earlier.  Some speak better than others when interviewed, but its still a crap shoot for us to predict what's going to transpire come draft day, IMO.

[ColtStrong2013]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

If Polian would have said something like that publicly, I would have expected Polian to be looking to trade UP, knowing Polian.   

 

In the end, I think anything a GM says this time of year always leaves enough room to do the exact opposite from what they conveyed earlier.  Some speak better than others when interviewed, but its still a crap shoot for us to predict what's going to transpire come draft day, IMO.

 

Polian and Ballard are very much different when it comes to transparency. 

 

Ballard has been very open and honest with his belief and direction. He's not deviated from believing in the draft. He's not backed down from believing in the trenches and putting a focus on them. He's been very vocal about trading down and acquiring picks or "darts" in the draft, and he's done exactly that. So yeah, I believe him when he continues to say he is looking to acquire draft picks and laugh at the "smoke and mirrors" talk like your post conveys... because so far, he's done pretty well exactly as he said he would. 

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

Polian and Ballard are very much different when it comes to transparency. 

 

Ballard has been very open and honest with his belief and direction. He's not deviated from believing in the draft. He's not backed down from believing in the trenches and putting a focus on them. He's been very vocal about trading down and acquiring picks or "darts" in the draft, and he's done exactly that. So yeah, I believe him when he continues to say he is looking to acquire draft picks and laugh at the "smoke and mirrors" talk like your post conveys... because so far, he's done pretty well exactly as he said he would. 

But those are pretty broad statements.  One way of acquiring more draft picks would be to trade a player.  Another would be to let a FA be signed by another team (resulting in a future draft pick).  It doesn't necessarily mean he's planning to specifically call teams to trade down as his going-in draft strategy.

 

He's simply saying that if the players he is targeting could be had later, he'll look to trade down.  But he doesn't know now where those players will be and won't know that until the draft itself starts to play out.  In that sense, saying what he said now could be said by any GM and it doesn't mean a thing.

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

But those are pretty broad statements.  One way of acquiring more draft picks would be to trade a player.  Another would be to let a FA be signed by another team (resulting in a future draft pick).  It doesn't necessarily mean he's planning to specifically call teams to trade down as his going-in draft strategy.

 

He's simply saying that if the players he is targeting could be had later, he'll look to trade down.  But he doesn't know now where those players will be and won't know that until the draft itself starts to play out.  In that sense, saying what he said now could be said by any GM and it doesn't mean a thing.

 

I didn't say he was going to trade down... He has acquired extra picks for this draft.... What I said originally was that he would trade down if anything, specifically in the 1st round. I couldn't care less if he trades down or not. We are set up pretty sweet for this draft to hit it out of the park again, in my opinion. But he's made it clear (whether folks here believe it or not) that he isn't going to part with crucial/valuable draft picks to move up for one player.

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

I didn't say he was going to trade down... He has acquired extra picks for this draft.... What I said originally was that he would trade down if anything, specifically in the 1st round. I couldn't care less if he trades down or not. We are set up pretty sweet for this draft to hit it out of the park again, in my opinion. But he's made it clear (whether folks here believe it or not) that he isn't going to part with crucial/valuable draft picks to move up for one player.

I didn't mean to sound argumentative.  I was just using your statements to make a broader statement of my own.  That while I think Ballard can be transparent in his overall philosophy and approach to building a roster, I wouldn't interpret any one statement as providing insight towards how he'll make any one decision.

 

I think if a special player falls to 26, he could trade up.  Then later deciding to accept a fair offer to trade Brissett to recapture a draft pick.  Getting a special player essentially for the price of a seldom used back up QB might be doable, and would tend to contradict things he has said so far.  Never know.

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I didn't mean to sound argumentative.  I was just using your statements to make a broader statement of my own.  That while I think Ballard can be transparent in his overall philosophy and approach to building a roster, I wouldn't interpret any one statement as providing insight towards how he'll make any one decision.

 

I think if a special player falls to 26, he could trade up.  Then later deciding to accept a fair offer to trade Brissett to recapture a draft pick.  Getting a special player essentially for the price of a seldom used back up QB might be doable, and would tend to contradict things he has said so far.  Never know.

Obviously no GM is completely transparent and honest..  EVER.   Nor should they be.   

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I didn't mean to sound argumentative.  I was just using your statements to make a broader statement of my own.  That while I think Ballard can be transparent in his overall philosophy and approach to building a roster, I wouldn't interpret any one statement as providing insight towards how he'll make any one decision.

 

I think if a special player falls to 26, he could trade up.  Then later deciding to accept a fair offer to trade Brissett to recapture a draft pick.  Getting a special player essentially for the price of a seldom used back up QB might be doable, and would tend to contradict things he has said so far.  Never know.

 

I didn't take your post as argumentative. It's a forum to talk through and debate these topics. So no worries on that.

 

If they have a premium grade on a player that falls to 15, then I would hope he would make it happen. I think they are realistic and confident in their scouting abilities to know they can sit put at 26 and get a playmaker. Also, they will have put a lot of focus and weight in the late 1st and entire 2 round grade players as that will be the bread and butter of their draft this year.

 

I think it's much more likely he moves the 59th and 89th picks to try and maneuver up into another top 50 pick if they are hot on a 2nd round player, rather than moving up in the first. It would just cost way too much. 

[ColtStrong2013]

29 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Obviously no GM is completely transparent and honest..  EVER.   Nor should they be.   

 

No one is completely transparent and honest. Hah. 

 

Of course he shouldn't tell exactly what he's thinking, and he doesn't to the point of who he's looking at and what he's planning on doing. But he's been transparent in his philosophy and has practiced that philosophy to a T so far. That's the premise of everything I have posted on this topic...

[NewColtsFan]

On 2/27/2019 at 11:47 PM, Superman said:

It's funny how some can hear what they want to hear in Ballard's comments. Almost a Rorschach test...

 

Regarding free agents and adding high profile players, Ballard didn't say anything today that deviates from what he's been saying since he took the job two years ago. 

 

Then, he went on with Dakich later, and said directly that just because they finished last season strong doesn't mean the team is at the point where they can take swings at risky players. He talked about how one year doesn't mean you're set, and how they will continue to stick with their principles of team building, team chemistry, etc. For anyone who thinks the locker room is ready to add a big name guy with baggage, Ballard directly said he does NOT think they're ready for that.

 

I look at the inkblot of Ballard's comments -- today, and for the last two years -- and I see a clear indication that he's not going to be signing or trading for high profile guys who have been in disputes with their previous teams, or teammates. 

 

Thank you!

 

Goodness gracious....    thank FLIPPING you!!

 

"Hear what they want to hear..."

 

Yup.   Pretty much spot on.    

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

Obviously no GM is completely transparent and honest..  EVER.   Nor should they be.   

 

Agreed.     Completely agreed.

 

And while I've been saying since he arrived that Ballard is pretty straight forward and transparent,  he's not above a little white lie and some draft gamesmanship.

 

Last year we heard Ballard say that it was a good year for guards,  that there were starting level guards into the 3rd and 4th rounds.      And then,  when he took Smith at 37,  he said that was the last starting guard in the draft.     Now...   I'm reading between the lines here,  and I'm sure some will disagree with me,  but I took his comments to mean Smith was the last starting guard as a rookie....   and that the other guards might start somewhere down the road in their career.    That makes the most sense to me.

 

That said,  I think it's clear that Ballard was blowing smoke when he said there were starting guards into the 3rd and 4th round.    I think he was tryng to throw other teams off the possibility that he might take Nelson at 6 and another guard high in the 2nd round.

 

And I think it worked.   And I'm all for it!    A little White Lie never hurt any fan base,  especially when the end result is so spectacular!     Well done,  CB!!

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

16 hours ago, DougDew said:

In the end, I think anything a GM says this time of year always leaves enough room for them to do the exact opposite from what they conveyed earlier.  Some speak better than others when interviewed, but its still a crap shoot for us to predict what's going to transpire come draft day, IMO.

 

Like @NewColtsFan pointed out, this is the time of year when the GMs are blowing smoke for the other 31 GMs.

No GM is going to telegraph exactly who they are going to sign in FA and draft.  They are going to try and manipulate other GMs to their advantage.  It's all bluffing and poker-faces while claiming honesty and transparency. 

 

This is when the GM earns his paycheck.  It's a game, and Ballard appears to be an All-Pro player.