Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chloe6124

Chris Ballard on the fan

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

the comment you are responding too was talking about landon collins, a first round pick

 

Yeah he/she told me I misunderstood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 3:00 PM, Chloe6124 said:

A safety is never going to be the difference in winning a SB. 

Bob Sanders? 2007 SB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

There is a difference between absolutely and hope.

"Do I think he has #2 ability?  Absolutely, I do".

"Do I think he has #2 ability?  I hope so".

Don't you think Ballard has shown he knows players?

He said him and the talking heads have watched tape 10-14 hours a day for weeks. That is a lot of eyeballs looking. They are also looking at tapes most of us have never seen. They have sent scouts out to check these players entire history on and off the field.

With that in mind don't you think the GM and coaches see things the fans don't?

 

the word absolutely was used by Ballard about Cain. The word hope was used by you describing your opinion of Ballard'd view on Funchess. 

 

do i think ballard knows his players? "know" is subjective. i think Ballard, and staff do their homework. that said, doesn't always pan out. they did their homework on Grant. Grant actually got worse coming to the Colts.

 

i love ballard, but I'm not going pretend that everything and everyone he touches turn to gold. some guys work out, some don't, regardless of how much homework you do.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

You brought up the notion of how the Colts offense will perform, by saying "Ebron's targets were consistent with Reich's previous O's".  No way would I have ever talked about the Eagles WRs without that context, because using that flawed universe of data as an underpinning of an opinion lacks common sense.  One had TY Hilton.  The other had WR turnover from 15-17, as has been pointed out. 

 

And with that stat, nobody really needs to know the exact amount of turnover, because we all know why and how that data point was created, in part, no TY.  Processing the datapoint into an opinion is simply being proud of the fact that we have the ability to process irrelevant minutia.  Hello digital age.

 

I understand your use of the word lazy, it becomes a separation word between those who do and those who don't use stats.  I get it.  Did you know that tech companies purposely use the word "smart" in nearly all of their advertising. smart phone, smart TV, smart camera?  It makes the user feel smart if they use their products, and a smarter person in general if they use "smart" techniques.  Welcome to marketing the gullable in the digital age.

 

but using data/stats is just the opposite of a faux smart marketing spin. it isn't "smart" data, it's just data. and while common sense must always be applied, common sense would absolutely tell you how valuable data and stats are. that same common sense will keep you from getting lost in the data. but if you never look before you form a strong opinion, well....

Share this post


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

 

the word absolutely was used by Ballard about Cain. The word hope was used by you describing your opinion of Ballard'd view on Funchess. 

 

do i think ballard knows his players? "know" is subjective. i think Ballard, and staff do their homework. that said, doesn't always pan out. they did their homework on Grant. Grant actually got worse coming to the Colts.

 

i love ballard, but I'm not going pretend that everything and everyone he touches turn to gold. some guys work out, some don't, regardless of how much homework you do.

Oh man. Grant didn't work out as well as thought.  Considering the Colts have had over 200 players in camps over the last 2 years and you are dragging out one player to complain about.

No one said Ballard was going to hit on 100% of the players he brings in. Where you got that idea I don't know.

You argumentative personality will not let you admit you could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grant was just a bandaid. I think they are expecting Funchess to be much more then a band aid move.

Share this post


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

Oh man. Grant didn't work out as well as thought.  Considering the Colts have had over 200 players in camps over the last 2 years and you are dragging out one player to complain about.

No one said Ballard was going to hit on 100% of the players he brings in. Where you got that idea I don't know.

You argumentative personality will not let you admit you could be wrong.

I could absolutely be wrong. And I hope I am. I'm just not letting the sunshine blind me.

 

If we're talking about FA WRs that come in expected to be the #2 or #3, that's a very small sample size in Ballard's time with the Colts. And Grant is the comp.

 

We can agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Grant was just a bandaid. I think they are expecting Funchess to be much more then a band aid move.

not sure about that. prior to signing with the Colts, grant had signed a 4yr deal with Balt for like 30M IIRC. Grant was coming off his best year prior to becoming a FA. the contract was voided though because he failed the physical (bad ankle). 

 

i'd guess that Ballard gave him a prove it deal, to prove he could be healthy and productive. we know now he missed significant time in 2018 due to a bad ankle. so actually Ballard did a hell of job not locking in long term like Balt tried too.

Share this post


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

but using data/stats is just the opposite of a faux smart marketing spin. it isn't "smart" data, it's just data. and while common sense must always be applied, common sense would absolutely tell you how valuable data and stats are. that same common sense will keep you from getting lost in the data. but if you never look before you form a strong opinion, well....

 Yes, I've heard the argument before, from other folks who get immersed in stats...that its flawed thinking to not even look.  I've heard it so often that it must be  a direct quote from the Handbook of Stat Usage Defense or something.  

 

Stats are often useless in actually forming an opinion because we never know the circumstances by which each datapoint is created (unless you have gobs of yet more data).  Stats are an after the fact look, where the compilation process eliminates what it thinks is extraneous information from the circumstance in order to have consistent data that can be processed with other data.  Any ratio has to have two numbers, and the creation of the numbers ignores circumstance.  Targets Per Pass Play, for instance, weeds out circumstances it thinks is idiosyncratic in order to create data that can be compiled with other similar data. 

 

You need multiple datapoints to compile in order for any one datapoint to be useful, and each datapoint can't have a bunch of idiosyncrasies or else they can't be put into the same bucket as the other datapoints....so the process strips off the idiosyncrasies to make them processable.  (In the world of football, that means the stat ignores circumstances.  As a broad example of idiosyncrasies, fans understand the difference between stats that are generated during junk time, and stats that are generated at meaningful point in the game. So it would be wrong to lump Targets per Pass Play during those two situations.)

 

The problem is that nearly every pass play in every game is a completely unique set of circumstances from every other pass play in every other game.....especially from one team to the next.  

 

Watching the tape, or better yet, watching each pass play of each game as they happen is a much better way to understand the information.    But since that's impossible, companies that get paid to opine...or opinionated people in general.....use whatever information IS available to form an opinion.  

 

If you know the data is bad....because you understand football and how datapoints are created....its almost a certainty they would be rejected, so you wouldn't use them to form an opinion.  And if you have little good information, the safe thing to do is to not form a strong opinion about something in the first place.   At least not call out others for having flawed thinking.  

 

Share this post


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

 Yes, I've heard the argument before, from other folks who get immersed in stats...that its flawed thinking to not even look.  I've heard it so often that it must be  a direct quote from the Handbook of Stat Usage Defense or something.  

 

Stats are often useless in actually forming an opinion because we never know the circumstances by which each datapoint is created (unless you have gobs of yet more data).  Stats are an after the fact look, where the compilation process eliminates what it thinks is extraneous information from the circumstance in order to have consistent data that can be processed with other data.  Any ratio has to have two numbers, and the creation of the numbers ignores circumstance.  Targets Per Pass Play, for instance, weeds out circumstances it thinks is idiosyncratic in order to create data that can be compiled with other similar data. 

 

You need multiple datapoints to compile in order for any one datapoint to be useful, and each datapoint can't have a bunch of idiosyncrasies or else they can't be put into the same bucket as the other datapoints....so the process strips off the idiosyncrasies to make them processable.  (In the world of football, that means the stat ignores circumstances.  As a broad example of idiosyncrasies, fans understand the difference between stats that are generated during junk time, and stats that are generated at meaningful point in the game. So it would be wrong to lump Targets per Pass Play during those two situations.)

 

The problem is that nearly every pass play in every game is a completely unique set of circumstances from every other pass play in every other game.....especially from one team to the next.  

 

Watching the tape, or better yet, watching each pass play of each game as they happen is a much better way to understand the information.    But since that's impossible, companies that get paid to opine...or opinionated people in general.....use whatever information IS available to form an opinion.  

 

If you know the data is bad....because you understand football and how datapoints are created....its almost a certainty they would be rejected, so you wouldn't use them to form an opinion.  And if you have little good information, the safe thing to do is to not form a strong opinion about something in the first place.   At least not call out others for having flawed thinking.  

 

oh my... 

Ballard is on record saying analytics are very important. Tape is an obvious must have, but he uses analytics big time. He hired several analytics guys in 17 IIRC. He also knows it's more than tape and analytics. They both are meaningless without culture. 

Share this post


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

oh my... 

Ballard is on record saying analytics are very important. Tape is an obvious must have, but he uses analytics big time. He hired several analytics guys in 17 IIRC. He also knows it's more than tape and analytics. They both are meaningless without culture. 

That's good.  They are probably in position to have and use that "gobs more data" that I spoke of.  They are probably in a position to have tape on every pass play for every game in the NFL in which to understand the idiosyncrasies of each Target and the data they studied.

 

And after all of that, he signed Funchess for about $12M.

Share this post


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

That's good.  They are probably in position to have and use that "gobs more data" that I spoke of.  They are probably in a position to have tape on every pass play for every game in the NFL in which to understand the idiosyncrasies of each Target and the data they studied.

 

And after all of that, he signed Funchess for about $12M.

 

And after all that,  he signed Funchess for $10 Million.      With 3 Mill in incentives.

 

There.    I fixed it for you.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

And after all that,  he signed Funchess for $10 Million.      With 3 Mill in incentives.

 

There.    I fixed it for you.

 

I liked your quote.  But I did say "about".  :-)

Share this post


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

That's good.  They are probably in position to have and use that "gobs more data" that I spoke of.  They are probably in a position to have tape on every pass play for every game in the NFL in which to understand the idiosyncrasies of each Target and the data they studied.

 

And after all of that, he signed Funchess for about $12M.

lol

look, we'll agree to disagree. Some guys work out, some don't. I'm sure Ballard did the same due diligence on Grant as he did Funchess. The data and film were both positive on Grant. The data on Funchess is bad, and film is suspect or conflicting at best. at the end of the day, he's a Colt, and I'll cheer hard for him to succeed. doesn't change the fact that most people think it was a below average value. if he balls out, foks will change their mind. i hope he gets raise and a long term deal next year, because that will mean he played extremely well.

Share this post


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

lol

look, we'll agree to disagree. Some guys work out, some don't. I'm sure Ballard did the same due diligence on Grant as he did Funchess. The data and film were both positive on Grant. The data on Funchess is bad, and film is suspect or conflicting at best. at the end of the day, he's a Colt, and I'll cheer hard for him to succeed. doesn't change the fact that most people think it was a below average value. if he balls out, foks will change their mind. i hope he gets raise and a long term deal next year, because that will mean he played extremely well.

Agreed.  My only real point about stat usage is that one of the biggest complaint among our Quants is the quality of data.  Its often cluttered with so much noise that using it would not lead to a credible forecast within the tolerances for error.  And stripping out the noise leaves you with a different situation.  So they don't even bother using analytics to forecast some situations.  I assume Ballard has access to the data he needs and the information by which to judge the quality of the data, and doesn't get too far over his skis when using analytics.  

Share this post


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

Agreed.  My only real point about stat usage is that one of the biggest complaint among our Quants is the quality of data.  Its often cluttered with so much noise that using it would not lead to a credible forecast within the tolerances for error.  And stripping out the noise leaves you with a different situation.  So they don't even bother using analytics to forecast some situations.  I assume Ballard has access to the data he needs and the information by which to judge the quality of the data, and doesn't get too far over his skis when using analytics.  

i had a bad opinion of Funchess before i looked at any stats. i watched a lot of his college games (I'm a huge ND fan, and watch UM, USC, and other ND foes all I can), and also have seen a lot of his Carolina games (I live in the south now, and it's what's on TV). I also have a bunch of friends who are UM grads/fans, as well as Carolina fans (I used to be in Carolina often on business) and I've listened their complaining.

 

In short, I always thought he was boom or bust. Made some incredible circus catches, but also was inconsistent as hell and had a lot of drops. The stats just support what I already thought. He should have stayed at TE instead of moving to WR his senior year in college. His career would have been more in line with expectations. 

 

 

Share this post


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

Agreed.  My only real point about stat usage is that one of the biggest complaint among our Quants is the quality of data.  Its often cluttered with so much noise that using it would not lead to a credible forecast within the tolerances for error.  And stripping out the noise leaves you with a different situation.  So they don't even bother using analytics to forecast some situations.  I assume Ballard has access to the data he needs and the information by which to judge the quality of the data, and doesn't get too far over his skis when using analytics.  

After breaking it all down Ballard looks past all the stats and analytics and ask himself one question.

Is this player a football player and will he make this team better?

It's that simple.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

After breaking it all down Ballard looks past all the stats and analytics and ask himself one question.

Is this player a football player and will he make this team better?

It's that simple.

Yes.  The analytics helps to determine traits of possible signees, as does the tape, as does other investigative techniques.  A GM may have only a few players available, and none may fit his ideal player.  Yet, he is charged with the responsibility of making the team better each offseason.  I think its tough to second guess a GM in that regard, when the signing isn't a significant long term addition to the team. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I wouldn't consider #10 a diss..... but I have a bit of an issue with the Cowpies ranked #2 at the same time.   We not only shut them out last season, we out manned, out-muscled and intimidated them in a way that none of us have seen a Colts team do to any team in a long, long time.   You could say "well its only one game".... and that's true.   But that was a statement game, and I just don't see how Brandt can justify a #2 ranking for Dallas given each team's additions this off-season....not to mention all those other teams he has them ranked ahead of.   As for the Colts...on our own merits.... I would have us closer to the middle of the pack on this list, around 7th and certainly ahead of Dallas.
    • His mom sounds awesome.  
    • Sigh...........   This is beyond really frustrating.    You're accusing me of things I literally haven't done.     That's very Irish of you.    Really annoying.      You ask for benefit of the doubt while never giving it out yourself.   I've put certain things into bold.   I'll try taking them one at a time.   Your first bold...   that this is not me saying that teams that aren't doing this are stupid.    I'm sorry, but when you declare that you've come up that you think is clearly and obvously better,  that you think you've re-invented the wheel and sliced bread,  it certainly feels like you're casting a disapporving eye toward any team that's not doing things your preferred way as a matter of course.   Then you claim,  that I want Ballard in the building ASAP,  but not before January.    Let me see if you understand this word.....   NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!   Was that clear enough for you?       If Irsay had decided in the spring of 16 to fire Grigson and hire Ballard in the spring, I would've been ok with it.   It's not desirable,  but if Irsay made that call THEN,  I'd be ok with it.     Where YOU mis-read me,  is that roughly 95 of owners make this decision during the season.    They see things they don't like and they decide during the season to make a change -- typically when the season ends.    Sometimes, an exec will be fired during the season and someone like Dorsey comes in during the season to oversee things and learn about the organization.    I'm fine with that.  There's no record of me opposing that.   I start with January,  because that's when the business season starts for front office and coaches.   Period.   The NFL views it as preferrable.    But making the switch in the spring is doable, as I've said in every post, and which you have ignored or confused badly.    But if Ballard had been hired in the spring of 16,  I'd have been fine with it.   This isn't the first time I've said some version of this.    This is not some ah-ha moment.   As to the bold declaring that there are tons of qualified guys and that CHOOSING the best guy is another story.   Here's my reponse to that.   No.   nonsense.     They are the same story.    They are connected.    Because you play down the fact that most GM's and most HC's fail.   They get fired before their 4 or 5 year contracts expire.   The owner has seen enough and makes a change.   Saying there are always qualified guys is meaningless.    Because FINDING the best guy who will succeed, isn't just important,  it's EVERYTHING.   All 32 teams can announce they hired a qualified guy.    That isn't hard.    But the vast majority of teams are introducing his successor in a few years.    That's why a franchise like Pittsburgh has very little turnover either in HC or the front office.   While franchises like the Jets or Buffalo or Miami are introducing someone new so often, you can practically set your watch to it.     Generally speaking,  the new GM has a long history of scouting and evaluating talent.   The new HC has a history of success, both as a position coach and a coordinator.   They can easily be called qualified,  (though new guys like Kliff Kingsbury and Zack Taylor do NOT have a long track record of success)  But the vast majority of hires...   are soon enough fired.   That doesn't speak well to their qualifications.      As to you meaning what you're saying...   Of course you mean what you say and I stated that clearly.  I don't know why this should rub you the wrong way.  I literally wrote that I know you mean what you say.    I said what I said as a rhetorical point,  not an attacking point.    My ultimate point was made at the end of my first post to you.   You typically write persuasive arguments.    You're able to frequently made me see your viewpoint.    But not here.    You accuse me of not considering your argument.    I'm sorry,  I am considering what you write.   But I don't see the typical high quality Superman argument.   I don't see points that connect.    Your argument feels like the one you'd make for doable.   It doesn't convince me at all that it's preferable.  
    • Yeah, Ballard said he's a patient guy, and he doesn't mind waiting to pick. We almost traded back from 34 as well if Rock wasn't there. I personally love the "trade back" strategy at the end of round 1, and wouldn't mind doing it in most every draft. A late 1st for a mid-second and early/mid second (from the Redskins) over two drafts is fine with me!
    • Haven't done research on the 2020 draft yet, but if it ends up having an elite WR or OT, I wouldn't mind trading up this year. We'll have to see where we finish (hopefully 32 ), and make a decision from there. Ballard landing the Redskins 2nd rounder may be a brilliant move.
  • Members

    • 2006Coltsbestever

      2006Coltsbestever 21,095

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ClaytonC

      ClaytonC 23

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • PeterBowman

      PeterBowman 2,807

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Shadow_Creek

      Shadow_Creek 416

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • CoachLite

      CoachLite 369

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Jared Jammer

      Jared Jammer 97

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Surge89

      Surge89 965

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Jcrane

      Jcrane 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SVFD Colts Fan

      SVFD Colts Fan 37

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,322

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...