Jump to content
Click here to get your free tickets for Colts Training Camp today!
CaptainColt12

Could Chris Ballard Have a Legacy Close to Bill Polian

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I have to disagree.  I don't think he's all that great at drafting.

 

He is really good at trading draft picks for vets that fit his system, though.

 

And he always seems to accumulate those compensatory picks.

 

Im not arguing he is. Im saying that is the consensus and im saying he isnt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For comparison, here are the players Bill Tobin brought to the Colts in 4 years from 1994 to 1997 via draft or FA.

 

Marshall Faulk, Marvin Harrison, Tarik Glenn, Ken Dilger, Marcus Pollard, Jim Harbaugh, Wil Wolford, Kirk Lowdermilk, Tony Bennett, Adam Meadows, Ellis Johnson, Zack Crockett, Floyd Turner, Kelly Holcomb, Lamont Warren.

 

Also defensive coordinator Vince Tobin and OC Lindy Infante.  

 

But he whiffed on Trev Alberts at #5, but gave us the infamous who the   is Mel Kiper line because of it.  And he traded a 2nd round pick for QB Craig Erickson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2019 at 9:40 AM, CR91 said:

 

I get that, but the fact still reminds. The patriots have had a ridiculous amount of draft picks over the years. You would assume they would have more then two HOFers during that span.

They r usually picking at the end of the 1st round.  That also makes it tough to draft elite players which have a better chance of becoming a hall of famer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2019 at 4:19 AM, DougDew said:

Relative to Polian, which is the topic of the thread, Ballard benefited from already having his franchise QB on the roster.  Polian had to use his high pick to get PM (he couldn't trade down like Ballard was able to).

 

So putting Ballard in Polian's shoes, where he needed to use his high pick on a QB, Ballard would have drafted Sam Darnold.  Not Quentin Nelson, Braden Smith, and Parris Campbell.  So 3 years from now, when all of those players are playing well and Darnold is just so-so, consider how lucky Ballard was by not having to draft a franchise QB after going 3-13 and earning the 3rd pick in the draft.  Don't ignore that fact when forming your viewpoint. 

 

He got three good positional players and two good players beyond a franchise QB out of the shear circumstances he fell into, which also included the fact that 2018 had three or four top QBs.  If there was only 1 or 2 college QBs worthy of a high pick, like most years, he couldn't have made the trade.

 

Ballard has been successful in not wasting his first few picks, and has been successful in trading down to get more.  He traded out of no-mans-land in the bottom of round 1 where Polian tended to stay and make the pick.  I think Ballard's strategy is better than Polian's.

 

Polian began to lose it when he drafted Ugoh, Gonzolez, and D Brown (again, late 1sts).  And Grigson wasted nearly all of his higher picks (again, all late in the round).  I think hitting on good players with 1st and 2nd round picks is not an exceptional thing for a GM.  IMO, it should be expected.   Maybe I'm just a tougher critic.

 

The media kept telling us the Colts had the worst roster in the NFL.  Then Ballard draft's players who stick on our roster.   So is the fact that he has so many draft picks still on the roster a sign of his drafting prowess, or is it a sign the roster was bare to begin with?    If you believe the former, I guess the media narrative about the quality of the Colts roster and the incompetence of Ryan Grigson was wrong.

 

In hindsight, I doubt any team would draft M Hooker with their 15th pick, nor Q Wilson with their 45th pick.  Not that they are bad players, but they were probably over drafted.  We'll see, they may start earning their investment as the rest of the D improves.

 

BTW, not that I'm a superior judge of talent, but making the top under-25 team is not really an empirical fact, its a fact created out of someone's judgment.

 

Doug....     apologies for taking 20 days to reply....    Honestly, I deliberately waited until the team broke for the summer to pick up the discussion.   Sorry to have left you hanging.

 

As to your response,  I appreciate that it's a thoughtful one,  but I'd like to respond to them...

 

In your first two paragraphs you explain to me how Ballard had the advanage of having Luck as his QB on his roster and not having to use a high-first to find his QB.    That Polian had a disadvanage because he had to use a first overall pick on Peyton.

 

I get it.   Except,  that I never made this argument.   My post in this thread about could Ballard ever be considered as good as Polian was that the likelyhood of that was very small.   That Polian is a Hall of Famer.    A first ballot HoF.    That Polian was hugely successful with three different franchises,  Buffalo,  Carolina and Indianapolis.

 

So, I'm actually in agreement with you that CB will probably never be as good as BP.    And you know how big an admirer of CB's I am,  so I don't say that lightly.    But just as I like to argue that Andrew Luck doesn't have to as great as Peyton Manning to be the QB we want.    CB doesn't have to BP for the Colts to achieve the success we all hope for.   I prefer CB's drafting approach as well. But CB has a clear advantage over BP.   The new analytics,  the so-called Next Gen stats.   In the nearly 10-years since BP retired,  these stats have exploded on the scene.   CB and his staff embrace them and seemingly use them better than most.   But it's a tool that BP didn't have.

 

As for Ballard's draft picks sticking on the roster,  here's the giant flaw in your argument.   You argument would be 1,000 times stronger if Ballard's 2018 team improved from 4 wins in 2017,  to 6 or 7 in 2018.    A modest improvement.    Instead,  we won 10 regular season games,  including 9 of our last 10 and won a playoff game.    That is not a roster filled with players who wouldn't start for other teams.    That's the tell that this roster is improving rapidly.    And no matter what you or  I or anyone else thinks of Grigson's players,  the bottom line is,  he could never have stayed.   His in-house behavior was toxic to the entire franchise.   Irsay had no choice.

 

In hindsight,  there is no doubt that Hooker and Wilson went where they should go.   I spelled out  the reasons in the last post,  so there's no reason to spell the arguments out again.   You simply disagree.   But the facts are what they are for both.   And the facts don't support you.

 

By the way,  as to your dismissal of hitting on first and second round picks....    I appreciate that to fans it doesn't seem like much of an achievement.   But the stats on first round picks are roughly this...    about 1/3 of first round picks are hits.    About 1/3 of first round picks bring only 2nd or 3rd or 4th round value.   And about 1/3 of first round picks are thought to be busts and either become journeymen or busts and are soon out of the league.    Not a very high success rate. And the odds go down with each round.   So, clearly the ability to hit on 1st and 2nd round picks is much harder than the average fan might believe....

 

And if not making an under-25 teams isn't impressive to you,  how about the boat load of honors that Nelson and Leonard earned.    It's not like the under-25 team was their only achievement.

 

Look....    here's my overall problem with this exchange....    you saw a thread where the discussion point was could Chris Ballard eventually become better than Chris Ballard,  and you simply over-reacted.     I posted my answer was no, and gave basic reasons.   So did a number of other posters.   But in an attempt to crush the argument,   you started making factually wrong assertions that looked like Chris Ballard had deliberately killed your dog and you were going to make him pay for that no matter what.    You didn't go a bridge too far to make your point,  you went many, many bridges too far.    And it's all so unnecessary.   What's the expression?   Don't try to kill a fly with a shotgun?    You get the idea.

 

All you had to do was note that Polian was a first ballot Hall of Famer and that's a pretty high bar to clear for another GM to be better than that.     One sentence and you would've won the argument.   Everything else simply wasn't needed.   

 

Thanks again for your response.    And my apologies again for the lateness of mine....

 

Share this post


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

 

Doug....     apologies for taking 20 days to reply....    Honestly, I deliberately waited until the team broke for the summer to pick up the discussion.   Sorry to have left you hanging.

 

As to your response,  I appreciate that it's a thoughtful one,  but I'd like to respond to them...

 

In your first two paragraphs you explain to me how Ballard had the advanage of having Luck as his QB on his roster and not having to use a high-first to find his QB.    That Polian had a disadvanage because he had to use a first overall pick on Peyton.

 

I get it.   Except,  that I never made this argument.   My post in this thread about could Ballard ever be considered as good as Polian was that the likelyhood of that was very small.   That Polian is a Hall of Famer.    A first ballot HoF.    That Polian was hugely successful with three different franchises,  Buffalo,  Carolina and Indianapolis.

 

So, I'm actually in agreement with you that CB will probably never be as good as BP.    And you know how big an admirer of CB's I am,  so I don't say that lightly.    But just as I like to argue that Andrew Luck doesn't have to as great as Peyton Manning to be the QB we want.    CB doesn't have to BP for the Colts to achieve the success we all hope for.   I prefer CB's drafting approach as well. But CB has a clear advantage over BP.   The new analytics,  the so-called Next Gen stats.   In the nearly 10-years since BP retired,  these stats have exploded on the scene.   CB and his staff embrace them and seemingly use them better than most.   But it's a tool that BP didn't have.

 

As for Ballard's draft picks sticking on the roster,  here's the giant flaw in your argument.   You argument would be 1,000 times stronger if Ballard's 2018 team improved from 4 wins in 2017,  to 6 or 7 in 2018.    A modest improvement.    Instead,  we won 10 regular season games,  including 9 of our last 10 and won a playoff game.    That is not a roster filled with players who wouldn't start for other teams.    That's the tell that this roster is improving rapidly.    And no matter what you or  I or anyone else thinks of Grigson's players,  the bottom line is,  he could never have stayed.   His in-house behavior was toxic to the entire franchise.   Irsay had no choice.

 

In hindsight,  there is no doubt that Hooker and Wilson went where they should go.   I spelled out  the reasons in the last post,  so there's no reason to spell the arguments out again.   You simply disagree.   But the facts are what they are for both.   And the facts don't support you.

 

By the way,  as to your dismissal of hitting on first and second round picks....    I appreciate that to fans it doesn't seem like much of an achievement.   But the stats on first round picks are roughly this...    about 1/3 of first round picks are hits.    About 1/3 of first round picks bring only 2nd or 3rd or 4th round value.   And about 1/3 of first round picks are thought to be busts and either become journeymen or busts and are soon out of the league.    Not a very high success rate. And the odds go down with each round.   So, clearly the ability to hit on 1st and 2nd round picks is much harder than the average fan might believe....

 

And if not making an under-25 teams isn't impressive to you,  how about the boat load of honors that Nelson and Leonard earned.    It's not like the under-25 team was their only achievement.

 

Look....    here's my overall problem with this exchange....    you saw a thread where the discussion point was could Chris Ballard eventually become better than Chris Ballard,  and you simply over-reacted.     I posted my answer was no, and gave basic reasons.   So did a number of other posters.   But in an attempt to crush the argument,   you started making factually wrong assertions that looked like Chris Ballard had deliberately killed your dog and you were going to make him pay for that no matter what.    You didn't go a bridge too far to make your point,  you went many, many bridges too far.    And it's all so unnecessary.   What's the expression?   Don't try to kill a fly with a shotgun?    You get the idea.

 

All you had to do was note that Polian was a first ballot Hall of Famer and that's a pretty high bar to clear for another GM to be better than that.     One sentence and you would've won the argument.   Everything else simply wasn't needed.   

 

Thanks again for your response.    And my apologies again for the lateness of mine....

 

The two prevailing points in my thinking is in the context of using current performance to judge Ballard against a GM who racked up 20 years of top-notch team management.

 

The short answer is obvious, of course Ballard can have the same career success as Polian...anybody can....but we won't know for probably at least 12 years.  

 

There were two facts brought out in the thread, not necessarily your comment, that I wanted to lift up regarding measuring Ballard's performance so far. 

 

The first was that Polian had to use his very valuable pick on Manning, and didn't have the ability to trade it for more high round picks.  

 

And the general idea that a draft is a success based upon how many picks stick on the roster certainly depends upon the quality of the roster at the time, as well as how good the draft picks are.  

Share this post


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

The two prevailing points in my thinking is in the context of using current performance to judge Ballard against a GM who racked up 20 years of top-notch team management.

 

The short answer is obvious, of course Ballard can have the same career success as Polian...anybody can....but we won't know for probably at least 12 years.  

 

There were two facts brought out in the thread, not necessarily your comment, that I wanted to lift up regarding measuring Ballard's performance so far. 

 

The first was that Polian had to use his very valuable pick on Manning, and didn't have the ability to trade it for more high round picks.  

 

And the general idea that a draft is a success based upon how many picks stick on the roster certainly depends upon the quality of the roster at the time, as well as how good the draft picks are.  

 

To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.

 

But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.

 

But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.

 

Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.

 

Again,  thanks for the exchange....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good job DougDew. You know how to spark up the conversation in the dog days of the offseason. Well played.    :billiejean:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

Good job DougDew. You know how to spark up the conversation in the dog days of the offseason. Well played.    :billiejean:

I love the summer time, it is for this michael jackson munich GIF

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2019 at 4:04 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.

 

But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.

 

But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.

 

Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.

 

Again,  thanks for the exchange....

 

might have something to do with our QB returning too.... 

the last year we had a fully healthy Luck (2014), we won 11 games and lost in the Conf Champ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

might have something to do with our QB returning too.... 

the last year we had a fully healthy Luck (2014), we won 11 games and lost in the Conf Champ...

Ballard has done a good job but it is obvious if we didn't have Luck we wouldn't win 10 or 11 games. At least it is to me. Brissett might win 7 or 8 games. He isn't winning 11 though with who we have.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Ballard has done a good job but it is obvious if we didn't have Luck we wouldn't win 10 or 11 games. At least it is to me. Brissett might win 7 or 8 games. He isn't winning 11 though with who we have.

I do agree, but I think JB would have done much better with Q and the upgraded OL. What JB would have struggled with, is our WR corp last year. Luck made lemonade out of lemons. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

might have something to do with our QB returning too.... 

the last year we had a fully healthy Luck (2014), we won 11 games and lost in the Conf Champ...

 

Of course.   No question.   Remember,  I'm here because I'm a Stanford fan.   An Andrew Luck fan. 

 

But I view football as the ultimate team game,   and you can't win like that simply because you have a great QB.   Especially since Luck was clearly not 100% at the start of the season when we struggled.    Honestly, as good as he was for the 10 game stretch,  plus the first game of the playoffs,  I'm not sure he was ever 100% in 2018.    I'm expecting a much better Andrew Luck this year.   He should be healthier.    He's clearly got a better team surrounding him.     A better coaching staff.     In theory,  things should be much better all the way around this year.      

 

That's my hope at least....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Smoke317 said:

Good job DougDew. You know how to spark up the conversation in the dog days of the offseason. Well played.    :billiejean:

What are you talking about?  I've posted like four times since April.

 

So, you think I said something controversial?  

 

And if I did, not because it was my opinion but just to get reactions?

 

Please explain how you came to these conclusions.  

 

Frankly, I thought the thread was dead until NCF quoted me like three weeks later....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polian has appeared in 7 superbowls 4 with buffalo 1 with Carolina and 2 in Indy. Ballard has been great but let get some rings before we crown him after 2 seasons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Of course.   No question.   Remember,  I'm here because I'm a Stanford fan.   An Andrew Luck fan. 

 

But I view football as the ultimate team game,   and you can't win like that simply because you have a great QB.   Especially since Luck was clearly not 100% at the start of the season when we struggled.    Honestly, as good as he was for the 10 game stretch,  plus the first game of the playoffs,  I'm not sure he was ever 100% in 2018.    I'm expecting a much better Andrew Luck this year.   He should be healthier.    He's clearly got a better team surrounding him.     A better coaching staff.     In theory,  things should be much better all the way around this year.      

 

That's my hope at least....

 

I'd say our OL struggled early, and is a big cause for the bad start. 10 of Luck's 18 sacks were in the first 5 games. Our D struggled early as well given the base and scheme switch.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

I'd say our OL struggled early, and is a big cause for the bad start. 10 of Luck's 18 sacks were in the first 5 games. Our D struggled early as well given the base and scheme switch.

 

All fair points.   Good points.   I just think there’s more.   I think we were somewhat limited offensively...    Luck only had a brief training camp and was only able to do so much.   As the season progressed, so did Luck.   I don’t think our viewpoints are far off. 

Share this post


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

 

All fair points.   Good points.   I just think there’s more.   I think we were somewhat limited offensively...    Luck only had a brief training camp and was only able to do so much.   As the season progressed, so did Luck.   I don’t think our viewpoints are far off. 

we were very limited offensively. IIRC, AC was out early, Mack was out early, we were playing musical chairs on the OL early (Smith was still #2 RG), WR corp was a mess (I think Grant was hurt early), Doyle, etc..

 

 

Share this post


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

 

I'd say our OL struggled early, and is a big cause for the bad start. 10 of Luck's 18 sacks were in the first 5 games. Our D struggled early as well given the base and scheme switch.

 

The defense couldn't stop anyone for three straight weeks (Texans, Pats, Jets), the receivers dropped a ton of passes, Doyle was out for five games early and Ebron's role was still being defined... and like you said, the OL was struggling and being changed every game (seemed like every series for a while). 

 

That was also the toughest part of the schedule. We played both SB teams from the previous season, and the Bengals started out 4-1. The matchups were more favorable after Week 5, especially looking at the QBs we faced.

 

And, so as not to take any credit away from the Colts, they also started playing better across the board. The coaching tightened up, Reich hit a six week stretch of phenomenal play calling (IMO), the run game got going, Inman started producing, the defense was opportunistic and started to evolve... 

 

I'm very interested to see if they can hit the ground running this season. Hopefully we don't have a 3-6 week warm up period like we've tended to have in the past.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

The defense couldn't stop anyone for three straight weeks (Texans, Pats, Jets), the receivers dropped a ton of passes, Doyle was out for five games early and Ebron's role was still being defined... and like you said, the OL was struggling and being changed every game (seemed like every series for a while). 

 

That was also the toughest part of the schedule. We played both SB teams from the previous season, and the Bengals started out 4-1. The matchups were more favorable after Week 5, especially looking at the QBs we faced.

 

And, so as not to take any credit away from the Colts, they also started playing better across the board. The coaching tightened up, Reich hit a six week stretch of phenomenal play calling (IMO), the run game got going, Inman started producing, the defense was opportunistic and started to evolve... 

 

I'm very interested to see if they can hit the ground running this season. Hopefully we don't have a 3-6 week warm up period like we've tended to have in the past.

yup, yup, and yup. 

 

And with all that, many of those losses we racked up early were very very close. 

I wish the schedule would have been reversed lol. I think we could have easily taken some of those teams later in the year.

 

I really think we will hit the ground running if we are healthy. Luck will be in year #2 of Reich's O, with a gelled OL, a much upgraded WR unit, upgraded short yardage rushing attack (Ware), a healthy Mack, and a healthy Doyle. The D will be in year 2 of Eberflus with a Houston, and a few nice draft pieces. 

 

Gotta stay away from the injury bug and we should be gold.

 

  • Like 3

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...