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.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • As I said, it's never about "can you fit under the cap?", or "do you spend all your cap space?" Because you can fit under the cap certainly. Actually, you have to, that's the rule. And most teams do spend their cap space. That's the point. Use it all if possible. The Patriots use it all usually, the Steelers use it all usually, etc. Most teams do. Actually, the Colts do use almost all of their 2019 cap space too. (The 2019 total sum of contracts is a bit over 184 million, just a few mills under the cap. That "40ish cap space" is already nothing else but the rollovers from previous years.)   But, even with spending all the cap space, there is good cap management, and there is bad cap management. The Patriots spend all of their cap space, and they manage it very effectively. The Colts (now) spend all of their (excluding rollover), and I belive Ballard manages the cap very effectively. But the Jags didn't. They went over the line, and sacrifized their future effectiveness by getting into bidding wars and signing pricey free agents one after another. The problem wasn't Norwell. If it was only him, that would be ok. The problem was, that they also signed Moncrief for 10M, Jenkins for 6M, Church for 7M, traded for Hyde and payed him 4M and he barely saw the field, etc, etc. The list is very long.      I never said that having elite talents heading into their second contract is a burden. You are right, that is a blessing. Actually, that is the best that can happen to a team. That's what Ballard want's to do! The problem is, that the Jaguars got into a situation, when there is a very good chance that they cannot sign their own guys. And their roster got thin, because they could not refill it this offseason enough. They got worse. And they will become even worse in 2020, because they won't be able to retain their talent level. Yes, they can cut Campbell, they can cut Bouye, and they can trade Ngakogue, and fit under the cap. And then? Who will play at CB, who will play at DE? A mediocre somebody. So, instead of improving their team, they actually made it worse. That's the bad management. Cap wise and talent wise as well. (However, I do agree, that they kinda draft OK recently - one year exceptionally well, but still OK since then, so their talent infusion is somewhat OK. What they screwed up big time is cap management.)   Btw, this is an old story repeating itself. Coughlin has been with the Jags before. And he drove them into cap hell before. It was bad, it cost them years to recover. He's just doing it all over again. He is (was) a very good coach, but terrible at managing the cap.
    • https://www.1070thefan.com/blogs/kevins-corner/colts-coverage/colts-say-no-trade-offers-sticking-jacoby-brissett-backup?fbclid=IwAR0IGDgC2r_pBbt7tUzbQjxiBv0zfXiUyxQtxziGhcsvuaRHI3Or6xVIT74   I like Reich's quotes here:  “It’s impossible for me to have a higher opinion of Jacoby than I do,” Reich says. “I said it last year, I think he’s a top 20 quarterback. I still say that. After watching him for a year, this guy’s really good.   “I tell Chris all the time, ‘Please don’t let him go. I don’t care what anybody offers him. Don’t let him go.’ I love Jacoby. The problem is now I’ve gotten to know Jacoby and, at some point, I hope that it works out for Jacoby. But not now.”
    • How is the number of UDFAs significant to anything?     For the record, the Colts actually signed 11 UDFAs...JAC signed 21.    BTW, here are some of the "better teams" and the number of UDFAs this year:   HOU - 20 KC - 23 CHI - 22 NO -17 LAR - 19 LAC - 19   I see no clear correlation between "better teams", thin rosters and UDFAs. There is more of a correlation between the number of draft picks and UDFAs, if anything. Those teams typically had less draft picks...and therefore...more roster spots to give to UDFAs. And UDFAs understand this as well...and see a better path to making a roster if a draft pick is not in their way.   In 2018, the Colts...in the first year of a new offensive and defensive scheme...coming off a 4-win season...signed only 10 UDFAs...because they had 11 draft picks...which makes sense. But that roster was by no means deep.  
    • I suspect, knowing Ballard to date, he is a guy who knew all about all the candidates including Reich, but I think @Valpo2004 did a good job breaking it down.  
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...