Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

w87r

Future Salary Cap Use

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

I didn't put words in your mouth. Both of those sentences were questions.

No, you were twisting my comment into making it into an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, crazycolt1 said:

No, you were twisting my comment into making it into an issue.

Nope. I was asking questions for clarification.

Share this post


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

So once a GM has stated his intention any disagreements about that plan is ignorance? 

 

Insults should be off the table but surely we don't need to all blindly agree with the plan just because it's been stated?

You are right in that regard.

we aren't blindly agreeing.  The stats show that any FA is a risk.  I guess what we (not)blindly agree with is that history shows these big contracts rarely live up to expectations, and many times result in dead cap and an un-planned hole where the "stud" was supposed to occupy.

  It isnt the disagreement with Ballards plan that i consider ignorant, its the fact that some can call it a disaster type scenario  while ignoring Ballards pretty stellar production in just aboit all areas. I cant see the future but if you connect the dots and read the tealeaves, or just listen to the guy and THINK... it makes Far more s nse to me then the more risky (imo) way of 2 or 3 BIG names, and all that that brings.  We've been there done that.  Didnt work.  Things are working.  Really working.  He'll find guys to fill roles.  After all, his goal was to improve the OL and he ended up with maybe the best OL in 2019.  Im gonna trust him until he gives me a reason not to.

  Btw, you are "discussing", some others dont, they just argue. 

Share this post


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

You are right in that regard.

we aren't blindly agreeing.  The stats show that any FA is a risk.  I guess what we (not)blindly agree with is that history shows these big contracts rarely live up to expectations, and many times result in dead cap and an un-planned hole where the "stud" was supposed to occupy.

  It isnt the disagreement with Ballards plan that i consider ignorant, its the fact that some can call it a disaster type scenario  while ignoring Ballards pretty stellar production in just aboit all areas. I cant see the future but if you connect the dots and read the tealeaves, or just listen to the guy and THINK... it makes Far more s nse to me then the more risky (imo) way of 2 or 3 BIG names, and all that that brings.  We've been there done that.  Didnt work.  Things are working.  Really working.  He'll find guys to fill roles.  After all, his goal was to improve the OL and he ended up with maybe the best OL in 2019.  Im gonna trust him until he gives me a reason not to.

  Btw, you are "discussing", some others dont, they just argue. 

I get that free agency is seen as a risk but the draft is also a risk. There are no sure things building through the draft either and one or two poor (or even average) draft classes can put you back as far as a couple of poor free agents if you're truly committed to not supplementing top talent from outside.  

 

We had a better year last year in terms of record but we might be overplaying how we can extrapolate the improvement. It is surely easier to go from a poor term to an above average one when you're picking at 3 and already have a top QB (you "just" need to find average players to go alongside the QB -  which I'm not saying he did by the way but just expanding the theoretical idea) than it is to go from an above average to top class team. You need a larger core of better players to get over that final hump. 

 

We can't keep focusing on our previous free agents. They were poor signings but we've equally made poor draft picks. Lets not pretend that free agency is the dumb, risky path which is doomed to failure whereas the draft is the smart, risk free utopia where you just pick 2 or 3 All Pros every year until the roster is nailed.  There is always a blend. 

 

We can't, and shouldn't, ignore the impact that carefully selected top class free agents have made throughout the league.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side bar factoid (ahem as it were:) I believe I read on MMQB, that 61.2 percent of "marquee" free agent signings never make it to the 3rd year of those contracts, thus supporting all the front loaded/guaranteed money by most players who fall into that category. Thought that was interesting to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Crunked said:

Side bar factoid (ahem as it were:) I believe I read on MMQB, that 61.2 percent of "marquee" free agent signings never make it to the 3rd year of those contracts, thus supporting all the front loaded/guaranteed money by most players who fall into that category. Thought that was interesting to read.

 

It's a very good point. It's easy as fans to pretend that signing a handful of guys will automatically make the team better, but in reality, most free agent signings wind up being underwhelming. Some are downright disastrous, especially for high profile players. And usually, even the best free agents who change teams don't play out their contract.

 

The best free agent signing of the last decade was Peyton Manning, and he started falling apart two and a half years into his five year deal, then retired after four. (Not a typical situation, of course, but still... that was a GREAT signing, and he didn't finish his contract.)

 

I definitely think that signing outside FAs is a legitimate option for making your roster better, but I don't think swinging big at the would-be best FAs is always the right thing to do. I'm not a huge fan of the Funchess signing, but I'm on board with Ballard's approach this offseason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

I get that free agency is seen as a risk but the draft is also a risk. There are no sure things building through the draft either and one or two poor (or even average) draft classes can put you back as far as a couple of poor free agents if you're truly committed to not supplementing top talent from outside.  

 

We had a better year last year in terms of record but we might be overplaying how we can extrapolate the improvement. It is surely easier to go from a poor term to an above average one when you're picking at 3 and already have a top QB (you "just" need to find average players to go alongside the QB -  which I'm not saying he did by the way but just expanding the theoretical idea) than it is to go from an above average to top class team. You need a larger core of better players to get over that final hump. 

 

We can't keep focusing on our previous free agents. They were poor signings but we've equally made poor draft picks. Lets not pretend that free agency is the dumb, risky path which is doomed to failure whereas the draft is the smart, risk free utopia where you just pick 2 or 3 All Pros every year until the roster is nailed.  There is always a blend. 

 

We can't, and shouldn't, ignore the impact that carefully selected top class free agents have made throughout the league.    

We will have to disagree i guess, which is fine.

 I NEVER said NO "top"free agents. I said not if the price is crazy... which it usually is day 1.  And we wont keep ALL our guys, obviously so some FAs of course will be brought in.  Its just my opinion you limit it, and dont get in a bidding war.

kinda obvious and common sense i feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2019 at 9:56 PM, crazycolt1 said:

Draft duds a few times?  He has had two whole drafts so I don't get your point?

Out of the 19 players Ballard has drafted only 2 (Basham and Banner) are not with the team.

Bashem and Banner both total busts, Wilson & Stewart have underwhelmed.  (Especially Wilson).  I said a few.  That's 4.   His first draft was the mean.  His last one was the best.  Most GM's pull back to the mean, just like shooters in basketball who hit 5 in a row often pull back to the mean over the next 10 shots.  Like I said, if he hits another home run, he'll be considered the best GM in the league.  If we regresses to the mean, then like many good GM's, he'll be more in line with everyone else.  It's pretty simple, but I am happy to re-explain it to you if it helps you here.  

 

I stand by the post 100% and I think I am correct.  I didn't predict what would happen, I recognized if he does as well as last year he'll be the best.  If not, he'll regress to the mean.  Sorry if you can't handle someone who doesn't boot lick your guy as many here do.  He's a human like the rest of us, not a Super Hero.  He'd be the first to agree (and has over and over in interviews when he talks about all his dumb mistakes).  Where were my comments controversial? Only to fanboys in my view.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2019 at 10:26 PM, LockeDown said:

I am betting he doesn’t pull back to the mean.  There is nothing average about Ballard. 

I hope you're right!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand not to overpay for free agents and I totally agree with that approach. But to be honest it is not like every free agent is signing for big overpayed dollars. There are some pretty reasonable deals too even early in free agency so please don't pretend that every free agent is commanding 100+ Mio. I'm fine with the Colts approch but sitting on 100 Mio again and doing nothing with it is a bit strange and sheer waste. And yes Colts have some free agents to sign next year. The only must signs are Kelly and Castonzo and the last one is getting 32 years old. We haven Ebron and Doyle both are great players but I only would resign them if they could stay injury free and play again on a high level. Sheard is also getting older and for 6 sacks I'm not going to break the bank either for him. So it's not like you have to save every penny for next years free agents at any cost either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no reason to think Ebron will get injured. He does not have a injury history. Doyle it really depends on his value to the team this year. If Ebron has another season like last year he could be the highest paid TE in the league. We will also probably extend Kenny Moore.  

Dont  forget the foundation of this team needs to be kept around also. It does no good to just have 5 stars and no foundation. The house will fall if you do that. 

 

If funchess comes in and becomes a star he will get paid also. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2019 at 12:20 AM, JPFolks said:

 Like I said, if he hits another home run, he'll be considered the best GM in the league.  If we regresses to the mean, then like many good GM's, he'll be more in line with everyone else. 

So how many of those other GM's had a year like Ballard last year? It wasn't just a good draft, it was historically good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Four2itus said:

So how many of those other GM's had a year like Ballard last year? It wasn't just a good draft, it was historically good. 

Throw in the fact that Ballard hired Frank after what happened to him with that cockroach McDaniels, yes it was a historical year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Four2itus said:

So how many of those other GM's had a year like Ballard last year? It wasn't just a good draft, it was historically good. 

You are making my point for me.  If it was simply an outlier draft, then he'll fall back.  Let's face it, his first draft had more than 2 bad and 2 weak picks, he ALSO failed 100% to address our most glaring weakness and poor Jacoby bared the abuse of the NFL highest sacks.  He has claimed he's made lots of mistakes (I think he said "countless") so.... if he made countless mistakes and had a mediocre draft year one, and had a historical (though we need to see long term how many of those guys get second contracts, we act like they ALL will.. I am not sure Fountain is on the team THIS year, nor a couple of the other guys.  Cain hasn't shown anything yet, so it's a crapshoot AND he's coming off injury.  A little bright light in Pre Season is baseless as we've had countless numbers of training camp heroes do nothing going forward.  Some just have short memories.  

 

So... how much more non-controversial can my comments be? He had one (at best) median year.. followed by a top class ever, followed by? Either another top class, meaning he's the best, OR he regresses to the mean, meaning a year closer to year 1.  How is that controversial/negative in any way?  What, not automatically saying he is perfect in all things, has never made, no ever will, make a mistake is now somehow an attack?  Or what?  We won't know if it is truly historic for at least 3 more years.  If we win 3 Super Bowls in 4 years like they did with Jimmy Johnson's class that led to that, then we will obviously be talking at least one in two of the best drafts ever.  (I'd LOVE to take that bragging point away from the Cowboys).  I believe that draft came from the haul from the big RB trade they made with Minnesota I think, but we got amazing value for moving 3 spots, and over two years certainly have ample pics to see where we stand in history as a franchise and its fans.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

You are making my point for me.  If it was simply an outlier draft, then he'll fall back.  Let's face it, his first draft had more than 2 bad and 2 weak picks, he ALSO failed 100% to address our most glaring weakness and poor Jacoby bared the abuse of the NFL highest sacks.  He has claimed he's made lots of mistakes (I think he said "countless") so.... if he made countless mistakes and had a mediocre draft year one, and had a historical (though we need to see long term how many of those guys get second contracts, we act like they ALL will.. I am not sure Fountain is on the team THIS year, nor a couple of the other guys.  Cain hasn't shown anything yet, so it's a crapshoot AND he's coming off injury.  A little bright light in Pre Season is baseless as we've had countless numbers of training camp heroes do nothing going forward.  Some just have short memories.  

 

So... how much more non-controversial can my comments be? He had one (at best) median year.. followed by a top class ever, followed by? Either another top class, meaning he's the best, OR he regresses to the mean, meaning a year closer to year 1.  How is that controversial/negative in any way?  What, not automatically saying he is perfect in all things, has never made, no ever will, make a mistake is now somehow an attack?  Or what?  We won't know if it is truly historic for at least 3 more years.  If we win 3 Super Bowls in 4 years like they did with Jimmy Johnson's class that led to that, then we will obviously be talking at least one in two of the best drafts ever.  (I'd LOVE to take that bragging point away from the Cowboys).  I believe that draft came from the haul from the big RB trade they made with Minnesota I think, but we got amazing value for moving 3 spots, and over two years certainly have ample pics to see where we stand in history as a franchise and its fans.  

 

Sorry,  but the part I put into bold is false....   completely false,  and I'll explain...

 

Six of eight Ballard picks from the 17 draft are still on the team.   Only two,  Basham and Banner are gone.   Six out of eight is a very high average.   Also,  of the six,  THREE ARE STARTERS,  (Hooker,  Mack & Walker)  which is excellent for any draft.   Two are rotational contributors and one, (Wilson) still has more upside and may become a starter.   Hairston is the weakest candidate and his first year was decent.   He fell way off in 18 for reasons that are not clear.  

 

But three starters and two contributors is very good.    I don't even know what "more than 2 bad and 2 weak picks" even means?     By the standards that NFL executives use,  Ballard's first draft was decent,  certainly no worse than average and probably by most,  above average.

 

As to the failed to address the most glaring need (OL)...     No.   What he failed to do was FIX the OL.    He did not fail to ADDRESS it.    He attempted to improve it with the FA C/G (name escapes me) that we signed from Tennessee,  and we drafted Banner.   It should not be forgotten that the 17 OL draft class was considered historically TERRIBLE.   Ballard was trying to address the defense on the first two days...   He used a late 4th round pick on a player with a low floor but a high ceiling.   Banner hasn't worked out.   For any team.     You're giving Ballard a hard time for not fixing something in one year that Grigson hadn't done in 5 years.   And that's not even all that uncommon.    There aren't enough quality OL in the NFL to properly staff all 32 teams.  

 

You're working way too hard to make a case.   You've way overstated your argument.   There aren't any facts to support what you wrote.

 

Where we AGREE is that Ballard will not have a class this year that's nearly as good as what he drafted last year.    We absolutely agree.    Not enough picks,  and they're mostly all late in each round.   But we can still have a good draft,  and I think the 19 draft is going to be better than the 17 draft.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Sorry,  but the part I put into bold is false....   completely false,  and I'll explain...

 

Six of eight Ballard picks from the 17 draft are still on the team.   Only two,  Basham and Banner are gone.   Six out of eight is a very high average.   Also,  of the six,  THREE ARE STARTERS,  (Hooker,  Mack & Walker)  which is excellent for any draft.   Two are rotational contributors and one, (Wilson) still has more upside and may become a starter.   Hairston is the weakest candidate and his first year was decent.   He fell way off in 18 for reasons that are not clear.  

 

But three starters and two contributors is very good.    I don't even know what "more than 2 bad and 2 weak picks" even means?     By the standards that NFL executives use,  Ballard's first draft was decent,  certainly no worse than average and probably by most,  above average.

 

As to the failed to address the most glaring need (OL)...     No.   What he failed to do was FIX the OL.    He did not fail to ADDRESS it.    He attempted to improve it with the FA C/G (name escapes me) that we signed from Tennessee,  and we drafted Banner.   It should not be forgotten that the 17 OL draft class was considered historically TERRIBLE.   Ballard was trying to address the defense on the first two days...   He used a late 4th round pick on a player with a low floor but a high ceiling.   Banner hasn't worked out.   For any team.     You're giving Ballard a hard time for not fixing something in one year that Grigson hadn't done in 5 years.   And that's not even all that uncommon.    There aren't enough quality OL in the NFL to properly staff all 32 teams.  

 

You're working way too hard to make a case.   You've way overstated your argument.   There aren't any facts to support what you wrote.

 

Where we AGREE is that Ballard will not have a class this year that's nearly as good as what he drafted last year.    We absolutely agree.    Not enough picks,  and they're mostly all late in each round.   But we can still have a good draft,  and I think the 19 draft is going to be better than the 17 draft.

 

 

You made my point but said NO he didn't fail in addressing our most glaring need.  Forget that HE, HIMSELF has said this in interviews.  So don't listen to him or me, believe your own DIFFERENT opinion than Ballard holds about himself.  What does he know? 

 

Look, it seems you think he can do no wrong or that he is above criticism (which he himself, once again, disagrees with strongly) but I don't.  How terrible of me to suggest he'll either be the BEST GM IN FOOTBALL or will regress to the mean based on this draft.  I believe he also said in an older interview that even he doesn't know how good or bad things will turn out, they just have their process and go from there.  The scouting teams he was involved in at KC had some home runs and strike outs as well.  As I recall WR was always a blind spot there.  Blame whoever but scouting failed somewhere.  Wasn't Bowe their #1 for a long time.  Ack. 

 

My post initially was to say he had a chance to CEMENT his place at the best GM in the league, OR he may be proven to be a mere human and regress to the median like most humans do.  Perhaps he can keep hitting grand slams, but most people in history haven't.  How controversial it is to people making your arguments.  The batting average finally ran out for Polian as well.  

 

"He's PERFECT I SAY!!!" the many throngs scream as they carry their torches and pitchforks to root out the interloper who suggests "there's a chance he may prove this year he's the very best, but most people on that kind of streak regress to the mean."  

 

"Oh, the humanity!" the throngs screech.  Whatever.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2019 at 12:12 AM, crazycolt1 said:

Now you are talking about two different positions so their skill set does not exactly mean they will be stepping on each other.

Ebron was pretty much used as a WR but I think that will change with the addition of Funchess.

The skill set of all three can be used to the offensive advantage.

Agreed.  Just because Doyle, Ebron, and Funchess are all bigger and slower than an average (wide) receiver doesn't mean they will be stepping on each others roles.  By default, Ebron will probably get less targets than he did last year because Funchess should out perform Grant and Doyle should outperform who ever played in his spot.  Luck will simply have more receivers open and have more choices.  But that's not the same thing as all three being the same player so only one will be resigned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JPFolks said:

You made my point but said NO he didn't fail in addressing our most glaring need.  Forget that HE, HIMSELF has said this in interviews.  So don't listen to him or me, believe your own DIFFERENT opinion than Ballard holds about himself.  What does he know? 

 

Look, it seems you think he can do no wrong or that he is above criticism (which he himself, once again, disagrees with strongly) but I don't.  How terrible of me to suggest he'll either be the BEST GM IN FOOTBALL or will regress to the mean based on this draft.  I believe he also said in an older interview that even he doesn't know how good or bad things will turn out, they just have their process and go from there.  The scouting teams he was involved in at KC had some home runs and strike outs as well.  As I recall WR was always a blind spot there.  Blame whoever but scouting failed somewhere.  Wasn't Bowe their #1 for a long time.  Ack. 

 

My post initially was to say he had a chance to CEMENT his place at the best GM in the league, OR he may be proven to be a mere human and regress to the median like most humans do.  Perhaps he can keep hitting grand slams, but most people in history haven't.  How controversial it is to people making your arguments.  The batting average finally ran out for Polian as well.  

 

"He's PERFECT I SAY!!!" the many throngs scream as they carry their torches and pitchforks to root out the interloper who suggests "there's a chance he may prove this year he's the very best, but most people on that kind of streak regress to the mean."  

 

"Oh, the humanity!" the throngs screech.  Whatever.  

 

Again....   working way, WAY to hard to make a point.

 

Nice Strawman......

 

Wasted your time with the nonsense about people can't criticize Ballard....    just make HONEST criticisms.    When you make up stuff or say things that are false,  THAT'S when I push back.

 

Ballard is not perfect.    Far from it.   Nobody is in the personnel business in any sport.   A fact that I've written here dozens and dozens of times in my 7 years here.   But so far, he's done a very good job.   

 

Make an honest criticism and you'll get more support than you think you will.   Make up nonsense and try to pass it off as fact,  and you'll get more push back than you think you should.

 

As for the Ballard and the O-line.   He tried and failed.    He says so.    The way you wrote it,  you made it sound like he didn't try to all....    "Failed to address...."     He addressed the line,  and his efforts failed which he himself has owned on a number of occasions.    You make it sound like fixing an offensive line is as simple as running out to Home Depot and ordering some quality O-lineman.      Many GM's have struck out trying to fix bad O-lines.     Ballard failed in his first attempt.    Succeeded wildly in his second.    Good enough?

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2019 at 12:29 AM, crazycolt1 said:

In all reality those who are complaining (whining) are the ones who think high dollar free agents (especially Bell and Brown) were the answers to reaching the super bowl.

If they would have been paying attention to what Ballard has been saying since he has been here they should have known all along those two were not on the Colts radar.

Questioning and debating Ballard's choices are always open but I don't think he pays any attention to what we say or think in this forum.

I don't think the stats support this claim, if that is truly Ballard's plan (to never, ever, sign big name FAs).  While both Bell and Brown are not the right players at the right time, I think stats show that most of the previous superbowl winning teams signed some big named big money FAs for their SB window.  So just because Ballard says that signing those guys is not his way of "building" a team, it might be a way to put a built team over the top in a few years.

Share this post


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

 

Again....   working way, WAY to hard to make a point.

 

Nice Strawman......

 

Wasted your time with the nonsense about people can't criticize Ballard....    just make HONEST criticisms.    When you make up stuff or say things that are false,  THAT'S when I push back.

 

Ballard is not perfect.    Far from it.   Nobody is in the personnel business in any sport.   A fact that I've written here dozens and dozens of times in my 7 years here.   But so far, he's done a very good job.   

 

Make an honest criticism and you'll get more support than you think you will.   Make up nonsense and try to pass it off as fact,  and you'll get more push back than you think you should.

 

As for the Ballard and the O-line.   He tried and failed.    He says so.    The way you wrote it,  you made it sound like he didn't try to all....    "Failed to address...."     He addressed the line,  and his efforts failed which he himself has owned on a number of occasions.    You make it sound like fixing an offensive line is as simple as running out to Home Depot and ordering some quality O-lineman.      Many GM's have struck out trying to fix bad O-lines.     Ballard failed in his first attempt.    Succeeded wildly in his second.    Good enough?

 

 

 

 

 

I DID make an honest criticism then some people come out to dispute it and it's ridiculous. One person I expect it from, he's named himself accurately.  your response.  So you now agree with my points?  Or you don't? I've made the same ones in 3 different ways to try and please some here.  I respect your posts, so it's that much more puzzling.  Why did you feel the need to respond with a challenge if you agree with my points in the first post as you seem to be doing again here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2019 at 1:31 AM, Irish YJ said:

It's not overthinking it. It's pretty simple actually.

It's what many on the board have suggested, and what many of the "pros" have said as well. 

Neither you or I will know until we see how they use both of them come September.

I doubt that Ballard signed Funchess to take patterns from Ebron.  He signed him to replace Grant.  Whether or not we think he has the skill to play the Grant role, because of his size, doesn't matter.  That's where he'll line up, unless Ebron is dinged up.  So Ebron's catches will probably go down simply because Luck has another option to throw to, an improved Grant, so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two words:

 

Mike. Bluem.

Director of football administration and known as the "capologist" for the Colts. He's one of the best in the league, if not the best. He is, without any doubt, well ahead of any of us in his reporting to Ballard when it comes to the cap. They are on top of it. 

 

If you go back and look at Grigson's work, while he missed on so many moves, he never put us in a bad spot with the cap, and it's in large part due to Mike Bluem and the contracts that were put on the table. 

Share this post


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

I doubt that Ballard signed Funchess to take patterns from Ebron.  He signed him to replace Grant.  Whether or not we think he has the skill to play the Grant role, because of his size, doesn't matter.  That's where he'll line up, unless Ebron is dinged up.  So Ebron's catches will probably go down simply because Luck has another option to throw to, an improved Grant, so to speak.

 

Disagree. I think he'll be #2 in the RZ, and play a lot of slot between the 20s. I don't see him as simple swap for Grant at all, that is, if you are saying Grant was our "#2". He may start out that way, but if he does, doubt he stays. 

 

We shall see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2019 at 3:33 AM, crazycolt1 said:

That is a huge pile of horse dung.

Ballard has drafted 19 players through the draft. 17 are still on the roster.

He has turned the roster over 40%.

He took an estimated 3-13 team to a playoff win.

Your lack of character in passing out the insults speak for themselves.

But those stats, by themselves, don't mean he or anybody has drafted well.  It simply means the guys he drafted either fit the scheme better or were simply better than the guys they replaced.  If the player you pick at 15 plays like the 35th best player in the draft class, it doesn't mean that it was a successful pick just because he beat out the guy who was here before him.  Henry Anderson had 7 sacks last year and was traded before that because he didn't fit the scheme.  Turnover happens for various reasons, but the rate of turnover doesn't mean, by itself, the guy doing the turnover is doing a great job.  It could just mean the guy before him was worse and that we changed schemes along the way.

 

I like Ballard and he's doing well, IMO, but I can't see where measuring how many of his picks are still on the team helps us to determine that.

Share this post


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

 

Disagree. I think he'll be #2 in the RZ, and play a lot of slot between the 20s. I don't see him as simple swap for Grant at all, that is, if you are saying Grant was our "#2". He may start out that way, but if he does, doubt he stays. 

 

We shall see. 

That's fine.  You're speculating, and you could be right.  I'm just saying that Funchess wasn't brought here to share Ebron's role even though people see them has having the same body type and talent attributes.

Share this post


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

 

Sorry,  but the part I put into bold is false....   completely false,  and I'll explain...

 

Six of eight Ballard picks from the 17 draft are still on the team.   Only two,  Basham and Banner are gone.   Six out of eight is a very high average.   Also,  of the six,  THREE ARE STARTERS,  (Hooker,  Mack & Walker)  which is excellent for any draft.   Two are rotational contributors and one, (Wilson) still has more upside and may become a starter.   Hairston is the weakest candidate and his first year was decent.   He fell way off in 18 for reasons that are not clear.  

 

But three starters and two contributors is very good.    I don't even know what "more than 2 bad and 2 weak picks" even means?     By the standards that NFL executives use,  Ballard's first draft was decent,  certainly no worse than average and probably by most,  above average.

 

As to the failed to address the most glaring need (OL)...     No.   What he failed to do was FIX the OL.    He did not fail to ADDRESS it.    He attempted to improve it with the FA C/G (name escapes me) that we signed from Tennessee,  and we drafted Banner.   It should not be forgotten that the 17 OL draft class was considered historically TERRIBLE.   Ballard was trying to address the defense on the first two days...   He used a late 4th round pick on a player with a low floor but a high ceiling.   Banner hasn't worked out.   For any team.     You're giving Ballard a hard time for not fixing something in one year that Grigson hadn't done in 5 years.   And that's not even all that uncommon.    There aren't enough quality OL in the NFL to properly staff all 32 teams.  

 

You're working way too hard to make a case.   You've way overstated your argument.   There aren't any facts to support what you wrote.

 

Where we AGREE is that Ballard will not have a class this year that's nearly as good as what he drafted last year.    We absolutely agree.    Not enough picks,  and they're mostly all late in each round.   But we can still have a good draft,  and I think the 19 draft is going to be better than the 17 draft.

 

 

I'm copying my response to CC1 here because you both used some facts in ways that don't really support your point.  Not to argue, but there are some issues with using those facts.....:

 

Those facts, by themselves, don't mean he or anybody has drafted well.  It simply means the guys he drafted either fit the scheme better or were simply better than the guys they replaced.  If the player you pick at 15 plays like the 35th best player in the draft class, it doesn't mean that it was a successful pick just because he beat out the guy who was here before him.  Henry Anderson had 7 sacks last year and was traded before that because he didn't fit the scheme.  I don't know how successful Henry's replacement was here, but he started because Henry wasn't here anymore. Turnover happens for various reasons, but the number of new starters from a recent draft class doesn't, by itself, mean the guy doing the drafting is doing a great job.  It could just mean the guy before him was worse and that we changed schemes along the way.

 

I like Ballard and he's doing well, IMO, but I can't see where measuring how many of his picks are still on the team or starting helps us to determine that very much.

Share this post


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

I'm copying my response to CC1 here because you both used some facts in ways that don't really support your point.  Not to argue, but there are some issues with using those facts.....:

 

Those facts, by themselves, don't mean he or anybody has drafted well.  It simply means the guys he drafted either fit the scheme better or were simply better than the guys they replaced.  If the player you pick at 15 plays like the 35th best player in the draft class, it doesn't mean that it was a successful pick just because he beat out the guy who was here before him.  Henry Anderson had 7 sacks last year and was traded before that because he didn't fit the scheme.  I don't know how successful Henry's replacement was here, but he started because Henry wasn't here anymore. Turnover happens for various reasons, but the number of new starters from a recent draft class doesn't, by itself, mean the guy doing the drafting is doing a great job.  It could just mean the guy before him was worse and that we changed schemes along the way.

 

I like Ballard and he's doing well, IMO, but I can't see where measuring how many of his picks are still on the team or starting helps us to determine that very much.

The thing is those 'facts' are part of the equation of determining how good Ballard has been. Then you can throw in another 'fact' that Ballard hired Frank after that cockroach McDaniels backed out.

Then you can think about another 'fact' that the Colts went 10-6 won a playoff game with a team that was expected to go 3-13 by most everyone. Even the Colts own fanbase thought 8-8 would be great.

You can undermine all you care to but separating all those 'facts' to drag out something negative don't work with me.

Some of us do praise Ballard because of the job he has done. You on the other hand want to pee in our Wheaties.

Share this post


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

The thing is those 'facts' are part of the equation of determining how good Ballard has been. Then you can throw in another 'fact' that Ballard hired Frank after that cockroach McDaniels backed out.

Then you can think about another 'fact' that the Colts went 10-6 won a playoff game with a team that was expected to go 3-13 by most everyone. Even the Colts own fanbase thought 8-8 would be great.

You can undermine all you care to but separating all those 'facts' to drag out something negative don't work with me.

Some of us do praise Ballard because of the job he has done. You on the other hand want to pee in our Wheaties.

I'm not disputing any actual fact.  I'm simply saying that the number of new starters on any team could simply be a reflection of how bad the previous GM was and not a reflection of how good the the current GM is.  That's a simple possibility landing on your Wheaties, not pee.

 

And besides, where are the cynical comments that GMs play their players over the other guys' players to validate their draft picks or FA signings?  I haven't heard that one in a while.

Share this post


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

I'm not disputing any actual fact.  I'm simply saying that the number of new starters on any team could simply be a reflection of how bad the previous GM was and not a reflection of how good the the current GM is.  That's a simple possibility landing on your Wheaties, not pee.

 

And besides, where are the cynical comments that GMs play their players over the other guys' players to validate their draft picks or FA signings?  I haven't heard that one in a while.

You bringing up the subject of cynical comments?  :thinking:

Share this post


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

That's fine.  You're speculating, and you could be right.  I'm just saying that Funchess wasn't brought here to share Ebron's role even though people see them has having the same body type and talent attributes.

 

we're all speculating at this point lol. so feel free :-)

 

here's my point, and we'll see how things pan out.

IF Ebron's (E) production + Funchess's (F) production (yards not TDs) in 2019 is not greater than Ebron (E) +Grant (G) in 2018, then IMO, it wasn't a successful addition/signing. And... If 2019 E+F equals E+G, and all that happened is a shift in production from E to F, it wasn't a successful addition. A legit number 2 will also mean our WR1 is more open and has more yards, so ideally TY's yards should increase. And, most important, we need the WR2 to get at minimum 800 yards. 

 

Luck should have a better year in 2019. He'll have a second year OL that is gelled, and hopefully healthy. We'll be playing better teams with better QBs, which means we'll need to score more, likely by passing. 

Share this post


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

I'm copying my response to CC1 here because you both used some facts in ways that don't really support your point.  Not to argue, but there are some issues with using those facts.....:

 

Those facts, by themselves, don't mean he or anybody has drafted well.  It simply means the guys he drafted either fit the scheme better or were simply better than the guys they replaced.  If the player you pick at 15 plays like the 35th best player in the draft class, it doesn't mean that it was a successful pick just because he beat out the guy who was here before him.  Henry Anderson had 7 sacks last year and was traded before that because he didn't fit the scheme.  I don't know how successful Henry's replacement was here, but he started because Henry wasn't here anymore. Turnover happens for various reasons, but the number of new starters from a recent draft class doesn't, by itself, mean the guy doing the drafting is doing a great job.  It could just mean the guy before him was worse and that we changed schemes along the way.

 

I like Ballard and he's doing well, IMO, but I can't see where measuring how many of his picks are still on the team or starting helps us to determine that very much.

 

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I'm copying my response to CC1 here because you both used some facts in ways that don't really support your point.  Not to argue, but there are some issues with using those facts.....:

 

Those facts, by themselves, don't mean he or anybody has drafted well.  It simply means the guys he drafted either fit the scheme better or were simply better than the guys they replaced.  If the player you pick at 15 plays like the 35th best player in the draft class, it doesn't mean that it was a successful pick just because he beat out the guy who was here before him.  Henry Anderson had 7 sacks last year and was traded before that because he didn't fit the scheme.  I don't know how successful Henry's replacement was here, but he started because Henry wasn't here anymore. Turnover happens for various reasons, but the number of new starters from a recent draft class doesn't, by itself, mean the guy doing the drafting is doing a great job.  It could just mean the guy before him was worse and that we changed schemes along the way.

 

I like Ballard and he's doing well, IMO, but I can't see where measuring how many of his picks are still on the team or starting helps us to determine that very much.

 

Pat Kirwin is a former GM.    He's one of the hosts on the NFL radio channel on Sirrius XM.

 

Every off-season he rates how the draft for all 32 teams three years ago has gone.   And his bottom line is this...   if you have 3 or more starters from your draft,  and a few others contributing,  then you have had a good draft.    That's not my rankings,  thats his, a former GM.   And it's not the first time that viewpoint has been expressed.    

 

If you want to come up with some other formula,  that's up to you.   But I go with his,  someone who has devoted his life to football and made it up the level of General Manager.

 

The key is...   rating the draft from 3 years ago.    Well,  we're not doing that here,  because Ballard has only had two drafts.   Perhaps a year from now,  we'll think of the draft even better if Wilson is the 4th starter and Stewart and Hairston are contributing more?    Either way,  I'm fine with this level of evaluation until somebody shows me something better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

 

we're all speculating at this point lol. so feel free :-)

 

here's my point, and we'll see how things pan out.

IF Ebron's (E) production + Funchess's (F) production (yards not TDs) in 2019 is not greater than Ebron (E) +Grant (G) in 2018, then IMO, it wasn't a successful addition/signing. And... If 2019 E+F equals E+G, and all that happened is a shift in production from E to F, it wasn't a successful addition. A legit number 2 will also mean our WR1 is more open and has more yards, so ideally TY's yards should increase. And, most important, we need the WR2 to get at minimum 800 yards. 

 

Luck should have a better year in 2019. He'll have a second year OL that is gelled, and hopefully healthy. We'll be playing better teams with better QBs, which means we'll need to score more, likely by passing. 

I agree, in theory.  I'm the guy who said Ebron wasn't amazing simply because his stats were aided by the fact the Luck had few other go to options, so E got more targets than he should have.  So if Luck has more options via a better #2 than Grant, logic says that Ebron's stats will go down.  They will settle to a more normalized volume because the other part of the team has become more normalized.

 

And I think that is the goal.  I don't think Ballard looks at it like I'm going to leave my #2 WR crappy because I have a TE who can make up the difference.  I think he wants more normalized and equal level of talent throughout the receiving corps in order to maximize Luck's choices.  Which is why I think Funchess won't be stepping on Ebron's role directly, although the impact may be felt in Ebron's total catches and the sum total of both players (which I think would increase actually).

Share this post


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

 

 

Pat Kirwin is a former GM.    He's one of the hosts on the NFL radio channel on Sirrius XM.

 

Every off-season he rates how the draft for all 32 teams three years ago has gone.   And his bottom line is this...   if you have 3 or more starters from your draft,  and a few others contributing,  then you have had a good draft.    That's not my rankings,  thats his, a former GM.   And it's not the first time that viewpoint has been expressed.    

 

If you want to come up with some other formula,  that's up to you.   But I go with his,  someone who has devoted his life to football and made it up the level of General Manager.

 

The key is...   rating the draft from 3 years ago.    Well,  we're not doing that here,  because Ballard has only had two drafts.   Perhaps a year from now,  we'll think of the draft even better if Wilson is the 4th starter and Stewart and Hairston are contributing more?    Either way,  I'm fine with this level of evaluation until somebody shows me something better.

 

I understand.  People have to rate drafts and there has to be some consistent way to do it.  But that also doesn't mean the method doesn't have flaws.  

 

Just take FS.  A lot of people liked Mike Adams, thought he was a good player.  He got old and had to be replaced.  We replaced him with the 15 pick in the draft.  Just because #15 is now starting where Adams was playing and we have 100% turnover at the FS position doesn't necessarily mean #15 was a good pick (don't read anything else into that comment).

 

The FS position could have had a new starter and 100% turnover even if we filled it with a rookie who was selected #87.

 

The stat by itself doesn't really mean a pick was good.  But yes, if the draft pick doesn't start in that situation it probably means the pick was pretty bad; however, we'd still have found a FS somewhere and we'd now have a stat about new FAs starting over previous one's and still 100% turnover, even though that stop-gap FS signing isn't really what we want.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Two words:

 

Mike. Bluem.

Director of football administration and known as the "capologist" for the Colts. He's one of the best in the league, if not the best. He is, without any doubt, well ahead of any of us in his reporting to Ballard when it comes to the cap. They are on top of it. 

 

If you go back and look at Grigson's work, while he missed on so many moves, he never put us in a bad spot with the cap, and it's in large part due to Mike Bluem and the contracts that were put on the table. 

 

Something just occurred to me while reading your post.

 

I remember when the Colts signed Trent Cole. Ryan Grigson was super excited about it, and he told a story about how Cole was in the building, but was walking out of Mike Bluem's office shrugging and shaking his head. Apparently, Cole and his agent were looking for a bigger contract than the Colts were prepared to offer. Grigson pulled him back into Bluem's office and by the end of the day, they worked out their difference. Grigson said something like 'when you have 'The Hunter' in your building, you don't let him leave,' implying that they increased their offer because he was that important to them.

 

That story paints a picture of a very disciplined and maybe even rigid contract negotiator / cap manager in Mike Bluem.

 

Pair him up with Chris Ballard, the man who says stuff like 'we have a value on every player, and we're not going to overpay,' or 'we're comfortable walking away and going to the next plan,' or 'we want to have these guys back, but if they get more from another team we're happy for them...' And now you have the two guys who are responsible for the cap and contract structure speaking the same language, with the same strict approach to negotiations, willing to walk when the number gets too high.

 

I'm not offering a judgment about this approach, or the previous approach. But it struck me just now that Bluem and Ballard are probably on exactly the same page when it comes to negotiations and structure, and that helps me to better understand how the Colts are able to sit on the sidelines and wait, even if that means they don't get a guy that they all really like in free agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with wDoyle and Funchess Ebrons numbers will go down. But that doesn’t mean he is less important to the team. Luck will just have more targets.

Share this post


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

 

Something just occurred to me while reading your post.

 

I remember when the Colts signed Trent Cole. Ryan Grigson was super excited about it, and he told a story about how Cole was in the building, but was walking out of Mike Bluem's office shrugging and shaking his head. Apparently, Cole and his agent were looking for a bigger contract than the Colts were prepared to offer. Grigson pulled him back into Bluem's office and by the end of the day, they worked out their difference. Grigson said something like 'when you have 'The Hunter' in your building, you don't let him leave,' implying that they increased their offer because he was that important to them.

 

That story paints a picture of a very disciplined and maybe even rigid contract negotiator / cap manager in Mike Bluem.

 

Pair him up with Chris Ballard, the man who says stuff like 'we have a value on every player, and we're not going to overpay,' or 'we're comfortable walking away and going to the next plan,' or 'we want to have these guys back, but if they get more from another team we're happy for them...' And now you have the two guys who are responsible for the cap and contract structure speaking the same language, with the same strict approach to negotiations, willing to walk when the number gets too high.

 

I'm not offering a judgment about this approach, or the previous approach. But it struck me just now that Bluem and Ballard are probably on exactly the same page when it comes to negotiations and structure, and that helps me to better understand how the Colts are able to sit on the sidelines and wait, even if that means they don't get a guy that they all really like in free agency.

 

I hadn't heard that story, but to me it also paints the picture that Bluem thought that Cole wasn't worth what Grigson was willing to pay for him... I have said from the time Dodds and Hogan came onboard that this show might feature Ballard at the forefront, but it's one of the very best young front offices in the league... and it is showing. We can only assume what they are setting up for, but I think we can all agree Ballard's team has a plan and they are executing it piece by piece. Really excited for this draft to get a better idea of the big picture they are painting. 

 

I also know that Ballard has repeatedly said there is a plan in place to hit the 89% of cap that everyone has freaked out so much about. Bluem knows what they need to do with the cap and as you said, seems to be on the same understanding/page as Ballard. A great team can fall apart if they don't work in unison. 

Share this post


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

I agree, in theory.  I'm the guy who said Ebron wasn't amazing simply because his stats were aided by the fact the Luck had few other go to options, so E got more targets than he should have.  So if Luck has more options via a better #2 than Grant, logic says that Ebron's stats will go down.  They will settle to a more normalized volume because the other part of the team has become more normalized.

 

And I think that is the goal.  I don't think Ballard looks at it like I'm going to leave my #2 WR crappy because I have a TE who can make up the difference.  I think he wants more normalized and equal level of talent throughout the receiving corps in order to maximize Luck's choices.  Which is why I think Funchess won't be stepping on Ebron's role directly, although the impact may be felt in Ebron's total catches and the sum total of both players (which I think would increase actually).

think of the following. 

 

-Saying Ebron got more targets because Luck didn't have options is incorrect. Reich's offense relies heavily on the TE. In 2018, Ebron had 110 targets. In 2017 when Reich was with the Eagles, Ertz had 110 targets. In 2016, Ertz had 106 targets. That's not a change in targets to the TE at all. Zero. It's just the Reich offense.

 

-Saying Ebron all of sudden improved because of Luck is incorrect, and thinking Funchess will do the same if flawed as well. In 2017 in Detroit, Ebron's average y/c was 10.8 and his catch % was 61.6%. In 2018 in Indy, his y/c was 11.4 and catch % was 60%. He actually dropped his catch % a little with Luck. The change was in how Reich used him. While in Detroit, Ebron averaged less than 10 RZ targets a year in his last 3 years there. In 2018, he was targeted 22 times, more than double. 11 of his 13 TDs were RZ. So, in short, he didn't all of sudden get better and start catching more or getting a bunch more yards. He was simply used more in the RZ, and used more productively. 

 

So.... if Reich holds true, Ebron will still get around 110 targets. If his snap count or targets drop, it's likely because Reich is using Funchess in place of, or in the same way as Ebron.

 

My prediction, Funchess will start out at the typical WR2 position, but will struggle with separation in between the 20s. If that's the case, he'll end up primarily limited to being a RZ weapon. And that doesn't do much for the WR2 need.

 

Reich's O in the past has relied a lot on short/quick passing. More of a horizontal attack. The issue is, while Luck can do short/quick, Luck is a true vertical guy. And what we lack are vertical weapons (which is why they drafted Cain). I'm sure Luck is pushing for more of a vertical game. The big questions are, will Reich tweak his O to accentuate his vertical QB, and will our defensive minded GM spend draft capital on a vertical thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

think of the following. 

 

-Saying Ebron got more targets because Luck didn't have options is incorrect. Reich's offense relies heavily on the TE. In 2018, Ebron had 110 targets. In 2017 when Reich was with the Eagles, Ertz had 110 targets. In 2016, Ertz had 106 targets. That's not a change in targets to the TE at all. Zero. It's just the Reich offense.

 

-Saying Ebron all of sudden improved because of Luck is incorrect, and thinking Funchess will do the same if flawed as well. In 2017 in Detroit, Ebron's average y/c was 10.8 and his catch % was 61.6%. In 2018 in Indy, his y/c was 11.4 and catch % was 60%. He actually dropped his catch % a little with Luck. The change was in how Reich used him. While in Detroit, Ebron averaged less than 10 RZ targets a year in his last 3 years there. In 2018, he was targeted 22 times, more than double. 11 of his 13 TDs were RZ. So, in short, he didn't all of sudden get better and start catching more or getting a bunch more yards. He was simply used more in the RZ, and used more productively. 

 

So.... if Reich holds true, Ebron will still get around 110 targets. If his snap count or targets drop, it's likely because Reich is using Funchess in place of, or in the same way as Ebron.

 

My prediction, Funchess will start out at the typical WR2 position, but will struggle with separation in between the 20s. If that's the case, he'll end up primarily limited to being a RZ weapon. And that doesn't do much for the WR2 need.

 

Reich's O in the past has relied a lot on short/quick passing. More of a horizontal attack. The issue is, while Luck can do short/quick, Luck is a true vertical guy. And what we lack are vertical weapons (which is why they drafted Cain). I'm sure Luck is pushing for more of a vertical game. The big questions are, will Reich tweak his O to accentuate his vertical QB, and will our defensive minded GM spend draft capital on a vertical thread. 

Deleted.  NVM, not in the mood for the back and forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2019 at 10:11 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

I’m guessing sarcasm?

 

It helps if you use emoji’s!     :thmup:

Stay sharp!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...