Is it too soon?

[Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes]

I know he came in with a great deal of fanfare, but has Chris Ballard been a significant upgrade from Grigson? Just asking.

[MPStack]

21 minutes ago, Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes said:

I know he came in with a great deal of fanfare, but has Chris Ballard been a significant upgrade from Grigson? Just asking.

 

A good question come year five. That’s how long Grigson had and the Colts had multiple playoff appearances. 
 

I believe this will be Ballard’s most challenging off-season with serious questions at the QB position. 
 

 

[Thunderbolt]

A slight upgrade maybe. This team should have been playoff bound, if they had made adjustments on the back up QB  and the kicker....

[Pacergeek]

I would say neutral. Ballard hasn't had the FA and trade misses, but he hasn't really attempted any big moves either. 

[Four2itus]

Classic....

[csmopar]

43 minutes ago, Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes said:

I know he came in with a great deal of fanfare, but has Chris Ballard been a significant upgrade from Grigson? Just asking.

[lennymoore24]

Ballard is a HUGE upgrade over Grigson.  Compare how many Ballard draft picks contribute on the team with upside versus Grigson.  Compared the failed truckload of Grigson free agents to the handful that Ballard brought in.

 

I think people get a skewed opinion because of the Luck situation.  Luck basically saved Grigson.  Had Brissett been the QB under Grigson the entire time, I think 5-11 would have been the norm.  Ballard built a team to compliment Luck, not Brissett.  He was handed a tough situation.  I don't think it is close.

 

Now, I will say that how Ballard approaches the QB position will probably define his legacy. If he goes another year with Brissett with no draft pick QB to groom, then I think he is a failure.  If he goes after someone like Jordan Love, who is a more athletic Brissett, he is a failure.  We don't need more QBs who have all the physical gifts but are inaccurate.  If he can get Luck to return or find a gem in the draft, trade for a player like Josh Rosen who does have potential, or get a free agent like Nick Foles as a bridge QB, I think he will be okay.

 

[crazycolt1]

The more successful franchises do not change their FO, GM and coaches very much.

Look how long the Ravens, Patriots and the Steelers change personnel. They don't. 

Just because a team has a bad season does not mean they need changes. 

Too many fans want instant wins and it don't happen in the NFL without stability. 

 

[BrickHead]

Ballard has had some misses, and Grigson had some good picks (Like TY). Every GM has bad picks, and poor FA choices. It doesn't require hitting on every pick to be a good GM, but over time they do need to build a competitive team, with or without a great QB. Can the Colts upgrade the QB position by building a better team around JB, or will it require a QB change. I'm not sure I have a good feel for which direction will be best ... Other than the status quo isn't going to cut it.

[TheMiz]

1 hour ago, Thunderbolt said:

A slight upgrade maybe. This team should have been playoff bound, if they had made adjustments on the back up QB  and the kicker....

JB is a good back up. I'd feel comfortable with him if the starter is going to miss a couple weeks. He can manage games and keep the team competitive. He is not a starter, and he wasn't supposed to be this teams starter

[DougDew]

I wouldn't compare them directly because they took different approaches, IMO. 

 

Grigson had immediate success and tried to keep it going by filling needs.  He signed a bunch of midlevel FA....because that was what the cap allowed (despite this reality, he still got criticized for signing only mid level FA) and had success doing that early.  His trades for Vontae and TRich were strictly needs based, as was drafting Werner and Dorsett.  He was always in the win now mode, IMO. And we pretty much were always a contender until Luck's injury and other things piled up.

 

Ballard has taken a build through the draft approach.  The exception being the signing of mid level FA to fill the need along the DL when we changed schemes and cut Anderson and Simon.  That approach takes longer, so I'd think that he deserves more years by which to be judged.  Draft wise, he's really drafted only two offensive players that have really stood out.  His defensive player drafts have been mediocre as a whole so far.

[Pelt]

2 hours ago, Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes said:

I know he came in with a great deal of fanfare, but has Chris Ballard been a significant upgrade from Grigson? Just asking.

Not sure how to answer you. Are you a law firm?

[Shepman]

We have no evidence so far that Ballard is an * to players and coaches and disrespectful.  Grigson on the other hand was that which is really why he was booted.  No one wanted to work with him, morale and Culture suffered. That alone is a huge upgrade.

[shakedownstreet]

Ballard has built the fundamentals of this team better than anyone since Polian's early days. Is this thread a joke?

[jbaron04]

I would say yes because this team is deeper than lucks team , if we lost luck with ballad team we would be picking as high as we did , this year with luck suddenly retiring we would have should have made playoff off if we replaced Adam or IR him earlier 

[Scott Pennock]

Every draft pick made by Ballard is in the league and contributing on the Colts or elsewhere.

 

He hasn't chased a lot of free agents, but the ones he's signed to decent money have all played up to or exceeded our expectations from John Simon, Jabaal Sheard, Al Woods, to Justin Houston.

 

Found gems and/or solid contributors in Desir, Moore, Muhammad and Glowinski in the scrap heap.

 

Had the gumption to draft Leonard in the 2nd when everyone else thought he was a 5th rounder.

 

Fleeced the Jets in a trade that netted us Nelson et al....

 

The ONLY creditable thing Grigson did was draft T.Y. Hilton and Ryan Kelly.....Luck was a no brainer.

[masterlock]

3 hours ago, Thunderbolt said:

A slight upgrade maybe. This team should have been playoff bound, if they had made adjustments on the back up QB  and the kicker....

I'm not ready to call him a "slight" upgrade, but I do agree with your point about the backup QB and kicker. Personally, I think Chad Kelly should've been given a chance to start, but despite all the talk of "competition", I think JB was going to get the job no matter what. And with Vinatieri approaching the end of his useful life as a kicker, more thought should've been put into finding his successor. 

[HectorRoberts]

I love Ballard but if you look at their first 3 years side by side....

 

Ballard season 1 4-12

ballard season 2 10-6

ballard season 3 6-10 to 8-8

 

grigs season 1 11-5

grigs season 2 11-5

grigs season 3 11-5

Grigs had a lot success his first 3 years but he leaned solely on luck. Ballard seems to be building a franchise and is doing this without luck.

[coltsva]

3 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

The more successful franchises do not change their FO, GM and coaches very much.

Look how long the Ravens, Patriots and the Steelers change personnel. They don't. 

Just because a team has a bad season does not mean they need changes. 

Too many fans want instant wins and it don't happen in the NFL without stability. 

 

While what you said is true, the 3 examples all had almost immediate success. After a few years only a fool would have fired any of them. 
 

Having said that,  it’s way too early to make a judgement on Reich and Ballard and any talk on replacing them is crazy. Five years is the time frame that works for me to evaluate, with or without a franchise QB.

[shakedownstreet]

Polian took over the Colts in 1998 when the Colt's already had Tarik Glenn & Marvin Harrison

 

 I'm not sure Ballard had anywhere near the opportunities to take over such an all pro team as Polian. I am extremely happy this guy is drafting on our side.

 

Ballard deserves all the credit here

[deedub75]

You have to compare their records with and without Luck.

[NewColtsFan]

40 minutes ago, HectorRoberts said:

I love Ballard but if you look at their first 3 years side by side....

 

Ballard season 1 4-12

ballard season 2 10-6

ballard season 3 6-10 to 8-8

 

grigs season 1 11-5

grigs season 2 11-5

grigs season 3 11-5

Grigs had a lot success his first 3 years but he leaned solely on luck. Ballard seems to be building a franchise and is doing this without luck.

A post like this surfaces every now and then.   Who was Ballard following?   Whose mess was he tasked with cleaning up after?

 

Grigson started with Luck and was given a mandate to win as soon as he could. 
 

Ballard started WITHOUT Luck and CB convinced Irsay to give him time — at least 4 years — to build a team that would consistently good.   Now CBA gets hit with Luck retiring.   These circumstances work in Ballard’s favor. 

[csmopar]

4 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

The more successful franchises do not change their FO, GM and coaches very much.

Look how long the Ravens, Patriots and the Steelers change personnel. They don't. 

Just because a team has a bad season does not mean they need changes. 

Too many fans want instant wins and it don't happen in the NFL without stability. 

 

Been saying this forever!

[Pacergeek]

TY Hilton, by far the best player on offense, was a Grigson pick. I'm three years, Ballard hasn't came close to drafting another player on Hilton's level.

[hoosierhawk]

9 minutes ago, Pacergeek said:

TY Hilton, by far the best player on offense, was a Grigson pick. I'm three years, Ballard hasn't came close to drafting another player on Hilton's level.

Nelson at his position is far better than TY at his position today. Nelson is in the top 3 or 4 at his position and TY is nowhere close but comparing different positions isn't comparable. I think Mack is good at his position as is Doyle

[DougDew]

4 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

Every draft pick made by Ballard is in the league and contributing on the Colts or elsewhere.

 

He hasn't chased a lot of free agents, but the ones he's signed to decent money have all played up to or exceeded our expectations from John Simon, Jabaal Sheard, Al Woods, to Justin Houston.

 

Found gems and/or solid contributors in Desir, Moore, Muhammad and Glowinski in the scrap heap.

 

Had the gumption to draft Leonard in the 2nd when everyone else thought he was a 5th rounder.

 

Fleeced the Jets in a trade that netted us Nelson et al....

 

The ONLY creditable thing Grigson did was draft T.Y. Hilton and Ryan Kelly.....Luck was a no brainer.

I typically get accused of committing heresy by defending Grigson about comments like this but please look at my first post.

 

Grigson barely had a roster when Polian left.  He had AC, Wayne, Freeny, Mathis, and Bethea; but he didn't even have a center.  No TE as Clark and Tamme left.  Hayden was gone and so was Marlin Jackson and Sanders.  Brackett was waived which left almost no LBers. Grigson had to sign Satele, Mike McCue (Magoo) and slow RT Winston Justice just to field an o line.  Irsay mandated a change to a 34, so RG went and got Cory Redding, the old NT, and scrounged up a few LBs and DBs.  He signed Ahmad Bradshaw and Donnie Avery.  He hired Arians.  Grigson didn't have the opportunity to fleece anybody by trading his high first rounder because he had no QB on the roster at the time of the draft. The only time he had any pick higher than 24 he picked a quality player.

 

That's a completely different situation and approach than what Ballard faced.  Any comparison is simply fraught with errors, IMO.

[shasta519]

5 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

Every draft pick made by Ballard is in the league and contributing on the Colts or elsewhere.

 

He hasn't chased a lot of free agents, but the ones he's signed to decent money have all played up to or exceeded our expectations from John Simon, Jabaal Sheard, Al Woods, to Justin Houston.

 

Found gems and/or solid contributors in Desir, Moore, Muhammad and Glowinski in the scrap heap.

 

Had the gumption to draft Leonard in the 2nd when everyone else thought he was a 5th rounder.

 

Fleeced the Jets in a trade that netted us Nelson et al....

 

The ONLY creditable thing Grigson did was draft T.Y. Hilton and Ryan Kelly.....Luck was a no brainer.

 

The TY pick was pretty credible though. I would say that's on the same level as getting Leonard...maybe even more impactful. 

 

Grigs also re-signed Reggie and Mathis...which were catalysts (in addition to Luck of course) for the immediate success of those early Luck teams. And Grigs traded for Vontae as well...which is the type of move I would love to see Ballard do to upgrade the overall proven talent at a position.

 

But I agree...definitely not enough overall. I think Grigs ultimate demise (beyond apparently having terrible people skills) was that he just wasn't a very good talent evaluator overall...and when he missed...he missed big. Change around a couple of those early draft picks...and maybe he outlasts Pagano and even gets to handpick a new HC.

[CanuckColt]

8 hours ago, lennymoore24 said:

Ballard is a HUGE upgrade over Grigson.  Compare how many Ballard draft picks contribute on the team with upside versus Grigson.  Compared the failed truckload of Grigson free agents to the handful that Ballard brought in.

 

...

 

Now, I will say that how Ballard approaches the QB position will probably define his legacy. If he goes another year with Brissett with no draft pick QB to groom, then I think he is a failure.  If he goes after someone like Jordan Love, who is a more athletic Brissett, he is a failure. 

...

 

Bingo!  You hit the nail on the head.

[shasta519]

29 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I typically get accused of committing heresy by defending Grigson about comments like this but please look at my first post.

 

Grigson barely had a roster when Polian left.  He had AC, Wayne, Freeny, Mathis, and Bethea; but he didn't even have a center.  No TE as Clark and Tamme left.  Hayden was gone and so was Marlin Jackson and Sanders.  Brackett was waived which left almost no LBers. Grigson had to sign Satele, Mike McCue (Magoo) and slow RT Winston Justice just to field an o line.  Irsay mandated a change to a 34, so RG went and got Cory Redding, the old NT, and scrounged up a few LBs and DBs.  He signed Ahmad Bradshaw and Donnie Avery.  He hired Arians.  Grigson didn't have the opportunity to fleece anybody by trading his high first rounder because he had no QB on the roster at the time of the draft. The only time he had any pick higher than 24 he picked a quality player.

 

That's a completely different situation and approach than what Ballard faced.  Any comparison is simply fraught with errors, IMO.

 

Agree...impossible to compare. Ballard inherited an (albeit injured) franchise QB...which allowed him to have the luxury of leveraging that pick into multiple draft picks...and then to use the top pick on a non-QB position. Grigs obviously didn't have that luxury. Imagine a scenario wher Grigs is able to make that move that STL did...trading back from #2 to #6 and getting #39...plus a 2013 1st rounder and a 2014 2nd rounder. And then because of the lack of LBs...Grigs take Kuechly. And then drafts an OL player like Mitchell Schwartz or Cordy Glenn with that extra 2nd rounder. Not to get too much into hypotheticals...but obviously...it would have been an advantageous position to be in...especially for a GM that just inherited a talent-starved roster.

 

 

 

 

[crazycolt1]

5 hours ago, Pacergeek said:

TY Hilton, by far the best player on offense, was a Grigson pick. I'm three years, Ballard hasn't came close to drafting another player on Hilton's level.

Nelson is considered in the top 2 or 3 linemen in the league. (even as a rookie) 

Hilton has never been a top 2 or 3 receiver in his career. 

Just stop.

[GoColts8818]

8 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

Every draft pick made by Ballard is in the league and contributing on the Colts or elsewhere.

 

He hasn't chased a lot of free agents, but the ones he's signed to decent money have all played up to or exceeded our expectations from John Simon, Jabaal Sheard, Al Woods, to Justin Houston.

 

Found gems and/or solid contributors in Desir, Moore, Muhammad and Glowinski in the scrap heap.

 

Had the gumption to draft Leonard in the 2nd when everyone else thought he was a 5th rounder.

 

Fleeced the Jets in a trade that netted us Nelson et al....

 

The ONLY creditable thing Grigson did was draft T.Y. Hilton and Ryan Kelly.....Luck was a no brainer.

Yet several of the would be GMs here argued the Colts should have taken RG3 leading up to the draft...

 

Just like the people who wanted Leaf over Manning disappeared once they had the benefit on hindsight.  

 

Grigson still stunk at his job and I think started thinking he was better than he was after his early success but he did put together three straight playoff teams so he did something right at the start of his time here.  It’s not like he inherited a great team either.  He had to rebuild it completely from the ground up.  I do think he was bolstered a lot by keeping Wayne and Mathis (which people tend to over look) so that should be mentioned too.  

 

If we are going to compare their starts one could easily argue Grigson did better in his first three seasons, three straight playoff trips compared to one for Ballard.  However, it’s what comes in the next year or two that will ultimately answer this question.  

 

To answer the original posters question it’s too soon to know especially when you consider Ballard hasn’t had the guy the team was built around for two of his three years here.  

[GoColts8818]

11 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Nelson is considered in the top 2 or 3 linemen in the league. (even as a rookie) 

Hilton has never been a top 2 or 3 receiver in his career. 

Just stop.

Not to mention that Leonard kid on defense...

[DougDew]

8 hours ago, shastamasta said:

 

Agree...impossible to compare. Ballard inherited an (albeit injured) franchise QB...which allowed him to have the luxury of leveraging that pick into multiple draft picks...and then to use the top pick on a non-QB position. Grigs obviously didn't have that luxury. Imagine a scenario wher Grigs is able to make that move that STL did...trading back from #2 to #6 and getting #39...plus a 2013 1st rounder and a 2014 2nd rounder. And then because of the lack of LBs...Grigs take Kuechly. And then drafts an OL player like Mitchell Schwartz or Cordy Glenn with that extra 2nd rounder. Not to get too much into hypotheticals...but obviously...it would have been an advantageous position to be in...especially for a GM that just inherited a talent-starved roster.

 

 

 

 

Also, you'd have to give Grigson Luck and Reich and Ballard the number one pick and Pagano to make an even comparison.

 

There was some chatter about keeping Manning and trading the pick to rebuild the team, but since a once in a lifetime QB was sitting there, the idea of having a new face of the franchise for the next ten years prevailed.

 

RG traded valuable picks for (supposedly) good young vets in TRich and Vontae.  That's a classic "win now" move (yet they were young enough to be part of the core of the team).  And goodness, we contended every year and went to the AFCCG, so its not like we didn't achieve our goals.  That didn't leave much roster for the future, but that's typical of a win now strategy.  Its the exact same thing Polian did when he kept the team together by signing existing players to those huge contracts that RG had to cut and eat the cap hit when he got started.

 

Simply different situations and mandates from above, IMO.

[Pacergeek]

6 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Nelson is considered in the top 2 or 3 linemen in the league. (even as a rookie) 

Hilton has never been a top 2 or 3 receiver in his career. 

Just stop.

Aren't the Colts like 1-9 without Hilton? Also, when was the last time a team was any good when their best player was an Offensive Lineman? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but your comment was ignorant.

[crazycolt1]

3 hours ago, Pacergeek said:

Aren't the Colts like 1-9 without Hilton? Also, when was the last time a team was any good when their best player was an Offensive Lineman? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but your comment was ignorant.

Calling my comment ignorant? 

I am not taking anything you say serious because of your long history of insulting fans in this forum. You don't have the capabilities of having a debate without making yourself look like a child. 

[Pacergeek]

8 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Calling my comment ignorant? 

I am not taking anything you say serious because of your long history of insulting fans in this forum. You don't have the capabilities of having a debate without making yourself look like a child. 

I don't recall ever insulting anybody. If I have, I apologise. I just believe, that in a passing league, Ballard should have already found a WR close to Hilton's level. I love Q, but if he's your best player on offense, your offense will not be good.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Pacergeek said:

I don't recall ever insulting anybody. If I have, I apologise. I just believe, that in a passing league, Ballard should have already found a WR close to Hilton's level. I love Q, but if he's your best player on offense, your offense will not be good.

Going into this season no one thought WR would be a problem. 

Injuries have played a huge part in our receiving crew. 

Pointing a finger at Ballard over the receiving issues shows you are just looking for a reason to be negative without knowing this roster at the beginning of the season. 

[HectorRoberts]

22 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

A post like this surfaces every now and then.   Who was Ballard following?   Whose mess was he tasked with cleaning up after?

 

Grigson started with Luck and was given a mandate to win as soon as he could. 
 

Ballard started WITHOUT Luck and CB convinced Irsay to give him time — at least 4 years — to build a team that would consistently good.   Now CBA gets hit with Luck retiring.   These circumstances work in Ballard’s favor. 

I’m not saying grigs was good by any means and I think Ballard is 10x the Gm grigs is but on paper grigson has more success than Ballard 

[Ratking]

4 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Going into this season no one thought WR would be a problem. 

Injuries have played a huge part in our receiving crew. 

Pointing a finger at Ballard over the receiving issues shows you are just looking for a reason to be negative without knowing this roster at the beginning of the season. 

I am not sure what proven receiver we had besides TY to start the season. I for one was disappointed with the Funchess signing and before the year started I worried injuries (ty is starting to have a lot of lower body injuries) would limit the Colts passing game. 

I do think it's a worry when our best offensive player is a lineman. I am not sure how much impact a lineman has on the game compared to about any skill position. 

[DougDew]

5 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Going into this season no one thought WR would be a problem. 

Injuries have played a huge part in our receiving crew. 

Pointing a finger at Ballard over the receiving issues shows you are just looking for a reason to be negative without knowing this roster at the beginning of the season. 

I beg to differ.  I've been stating for about 5 years, ever since Wayne went down with his injury, that we needed WR help.  Not just vet FA to one year deals, but a core second WR.  (which is why I supported the Dorsett pick at the time...right vision...right strategy...wrong player.)

 

And soon it will be a core #2 AND core #1, cuz TY isn't getting any younger. 

 

 Forget the QB, we've beaten that to death. 

 

If you don't have any down field threats at WR or tackle breakers in the short field, the defense is going to jump the short routes with no fear of negative consequences and stack the box against the run.