Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
runthepost

Ballard’s eye for talent.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

What are you rambling about?lmao

 

The list that was presented showed the players currently on the team, at this point.

It was quoted as mentioning other than Nelson and Leonard...(probably Smith should be in there)...the rest were a bunch of JAGs, at this point. (where the quoter made it clear at this point)

 

Might they be better than JAGs next year?  Possible.

 

But at this point, the defense played like we fielded a bunch of JAGs, as did our passing game, which has a bunch of cast offs who weren't even drafted by the Colts...many of whom are not good enough to return, unless we get desperate after this draft. 

 

If you look at the list of players, that's why those units played like JAGs, at this point.

 

Why else did they play that way?  JB?

 

But:

 

To pretend they have more talent then what they showed, at this point, is simple fantasy to support a Ballard genius-boy thinking.   Which was necessary to create the moment he was hired (starting off by cheering for drafting a Johnny-one-note FS at pick 15) in order to validate the blind hate for Grigson that was never warranted.... then attempting, in typical media mob tyrannical and oppressive fashion,  to stomp out every last bit of dissent by moving the goal posts of the conversation to RYAN GRIGSON with every thread about Ballard in the past three years. 

 

A simple way to do that this past season is to blame JB for everything so it makes it easier to ignore the roster and maintain the fantasy Ballard genius-boy view that was heavily invested in three years ago.

 

And now, to continually validate the hate for Grigson, you even have to argue with Ballard himself by supporting a roster even he said he was not happy with.

 

LOL.

 

You take so many things out if context it’s just exhausting.   Rambling?   Did you see how long your post was?

 

Im not a fan of people who only cite info or stats that support their own views and act as if that’s the only info to stats to consider.   That’s why you constantly have viewpoints that are supported by almost no one. 
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dingus McGirt said:

Could the owner have some input/involvement in Ballard's expenditure of funds?

Yes, but this is Irsay.  If anything, he's anxious to see Ballard open up the engine and bring in some premium talent.

Share this post


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

You take so many things out if context it’s just exhausting.   Rambling?   Did you see how long your post was?

 

Im not a fan of people who only cite info or stats that support their own views and act as if that’s the only info to stats to consider.   That’s why you constantly have viewpoints that are supported by almost no one. 
 

What point in what other thread are you rambling about in this one?

 

At this point, we were 7-9 for a reason, because we have a roster that played like JAGs.  Because at this point, that's what they are.

 

What does that have to do with Grigson?  

 

Did you bring him up because your point is that we played like JAGs because Ballard is still saddled with some Grigson albatross after three years removed?  

 

Or see the roster being loaded with talent, its just that Luck up and retired and JB single handily destroyed the great play of the entire genius-made roster?

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

I've actually just realized how funny this comparison is;

You've selected a period when Ballard has had;

 

  • - 2 first round picks (average position average position 10) and 
  • - 8 second round picks (average position 47)

 

While Belichick has had 

 

- 3 first round picks ( average position 28) and 

- 2 second round picks (average position 50)

 

I'd be more worried if Ballard couldn't find more people to contribute somewhat on a 7&9 roster when he's had 400% more second rounders and has been selecting his first rounders more than half a round in advance. Apples and oranges spring to mind. 

 

Comparing draft capital to draft capital, the difference is much less than it looks by the first 2 rounds. They traded down and up, giving up or gaining 2nd rounds for 1st or 3rd, etc. The only big difference was 2018, when the Colts had a 1/6. Other than that, the Patriots did pick later, but had more compensatory picks, and some picks for traded players. The total draft capital was/is quite close, except that extra 1/6. So remove Nelson from the comparison, and compare the rest. Ballard still wins by a mile.

 

9 hours ago, Pacergeek said:

Just because Rock was a PFF all pro, can we please stop pretending he had a good Rookie season. Spoiler Alert: he didn't.

 

PFF believe Rock had a top50 rookie season. I believe he had his ups and downs, but altogether he had a good rookie season. Are we pretending because you think he didn't have a good season? 

 

11 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

As for drafting starters. It has to be remembered that not all starters are equal. Being a starter for the Bengals is not the same as being a starter for the Ravens. There are levels.

 

You are right. So lets put the Colts roster into context. Nate Hairston, who was traded to the Jets because he wouldn't make the Colts roster, was a starting CB for the Jets. Tarell Basham, who Ballard waived after 1 year was also a starter for the Jets. Zach Banner, who didn't even make the first cut here, was the backup LT for the Steelers, then promoted to start after injuries. According to Pittsburgh media, he is now the frontrunner for the LT job next year (or RT, depending on which of the 2 veterans they will say goodbye to soon.) That's a level, which didn't make the Colts's level. You can call it "Bengals" level, or whatever.

 

The Colts level is better. I'm positive, that this Colts roster is in the top 1/3rd of the league. With Luck, this team would've competed for a bye week in 2019. With an average QB, they would be probably a playoff team. So, being a starter for the Colts is much closer to the Ravens level than the Bengals level. They just didn't have the league MVP at QB.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Comparing draft capital to draft capital, the difference is much less than it looks by the first 2 rounds. They traded down and up, giving up or gaining 2nd rounds for 1st or 3rd, etc. The only big difference was 2018, when the Colts had a 1/6. Other than that, the Patriots did pick later, but had more compensatory picks, and some picks for traded players. The total draft capital was/is quite close, except that extra 1/6. So remove Nelson from the comparison, and compare the rest. Ballard still wins by 

 

You are right. So lets put the Colts roster into context. Nate Hairston, who was traded to the Jets because he wouldn't make the Colts roster, was a starting CB for the Jets. Tarell Basham, who Ballard waived after 1 year was also a starter for the Jets. Zach Banner, who didn't even make the first cut here, was the backup LT for the Steelers, then promoted to start after injuries. According to Pittsburgh media, he is now the frontrunner for the LT job next year (or RT, depending on which of the 2 veterans they will say goodbye to soon.) That's a level, which didn't make the Colts's level. You can call it "Bengals" level, or whatever.

 

The Colts level is better. I'm positive, that this Colts roster is in the top 1/3rd of the league. With Luck, this team would've competed for a bye week in 2019. With an average QB, they would be probably a playoff team. So, being a starter for the Colts is not the Bengals level.

A top 6 pick, a top 15 pick and 8 second rounders isn't even close to 3 late first picks and 2 second rounders. Compare them on the draft chart.

 

You make another fair point. Is Clark better than Banner? Are our reserve ends and corners better than Basham and Hairston? I'm not actually sure any of them are true. That's not actually a good thing.

 

I'm not sure what you're basing a top third roster on. Unfortunately no results show that as a reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

A top 6 pick, a top 15 pick and 8 second rounders isn't even close to 3 late first picks and 2 second rounders. Compare them on the draft chart.

 

You make another fair point. Is Clark better than Banner? Are our reserve ends and corners better than Basham and Hairston? I'm not actually sure any of them are true. That's not actually a good thing.

 

I'm not sure what you're basing a top third roster on. Unfortunately no results show that as a reality. 

 

Again: You are not drafting only first and second rounders. You are drafting in all seven rounds. Belichick (so did Ballard) traded down with some of his picks to acquire more picks, including 2nd rounders. It doesn't matter if it's your original pick or your acquired pick(s), if you hit them, then you hit them, if you miss, then you miss. If we remove that single 1/6 pick, the remaining total draft capitals of the 2 teams were comparable. Actually, quite close. The difference is, that Ballard found an all pro in the 2nd round, Belichick didn't. Ballard found quality starters in the 4th, 5th rounds, Belichick didn't.

 

I am basing it on my eyes, my judgement. You are right, unfortunately there is no universal measure for that. (There are statistics which we can look at, but mostly, it's subjective.) So in my opinion, the 2018 roster was not in the top15 NFL rosters, despite the Colts on paper, was a top8 team that year (reaching the divisional round). And in my opinion, the 2019 roster was a top third roster, despite the Colts finished below average. The QB made all the difference. Having a quality QB is that important.

 

(Regarding our reserve corners, sadly, we could see them quite a lot on the field due to injuries. More often than not, they did a pretty good job. For example, the Colts won the Chiefs game with practically their second team corners and safeties. Anyway, I think Hairston was a nice player for us. He was just the odd man out once Kenny Moore became an elite slot corner and we had Desir, Rock, Wilson, etc. )

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the season started, the Colts had the 10th best roster in the league.  9th at Thedraftnetwork.com.  

 

10) Indianapolis Colts

General manager Chris Ballard was a worthy and deserving choice as the PFWA Executive of the Year in 2018. Ballard's second draft on the job was a brilliant one, netting two load-bearing offensive linemen (Quenton Nelson and Braden Smith), a diamond-in-the-rough defensive stud (Darius Leonard, the Defensive Rookie of the Year) and a productive fourth-round running back (Nyheim Hines, who contributed 739 scrimmage yards and four total touchdowns). But it's not just about the draft: The Colts have added veterans wisely, landing contributors like cornerback Pierre Desir, linebacker Margus Hunt, defensive end Denico Autry and tight end Eric Ebron, who all enjoyed career years in Indianapolis last season. That also speaks well of the job done by coach Frank Reich and his staff.

As for this year's additions, Justin Houston could provide a pass-rushing boost to a defense that ranked 11th overall and 16th against the pass in 2018, while Devin Funchess and rookie Parris Campbell should help make veteran receiver T.Y. Hilton even more effective. And, of course, it's impossible to overstate the impact of having Andrew Luck playing at an elite level again after shoulder issues cost him the 2017 season.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001034229/article/ten-most-talented-teams-in-the-nfl-ahead-of-the-2019-season

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Myles said:

Before the season started, the Colts had the 10th best roster in the league.  9th at Thedraftnetwork.com.  

 

10) Indianapolis Colts

General manager Chris Ballard was a worthy and deserving choice as the PFWA Executive of the Year in 2018. Ballard's second draft on the job was a brilliant one, netting two load-bearing offensive linemen (Quenton Nelson and Braden Smith), a diamond-in-the-rough defensive stud (Darius Leonard, the Defensive Rookie of the Year) and a productive fourth-round running back (Nyheim Hines, who contributed 739 scrimmage yards and four total touchdowns). But it's not just about the draft: The Colts have added veterans wisely, landing contributors like cornerback Pierre Desir, linebacker Margus Hunt, defensive end Denico Autry and tight end Eric Ebron, who all enjoyed career years in Indianapolis last season. That also speaks well of the job done by coach Frank Reich and his staff.

As for this year's additions, Justin Houston could provide a pass-rushing boost to a defense that ranked 11th overall and 16th against the pass in 2018, while Devin Funchess and rookie Parris Campbell should help make veteran receiver T.Y. Hilton even more effective. And, of course, it's impossible to overstate the impact of having Andrew Luck playing at an elite level again after shoulder issues cost him the 2017 season.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001034229/article/ten-most-talented-teams-in-the-nfl-ahead-of-the-2019-season

Respectfully, that article was written prior to this season, and nearly every player mentioned outside of the three we all know are good, Nelson, Leonard, and Smith; have not improved this season or have regressed.  Devin Funchess isn't really an addition to this roster because he never played.  Not his or Ballard's fault, but I don't see the support for saying anything positive about adding him when he contributed nothing.

 

And Hines got his production because he's the guy for those plays in Reich's O.  Its not like he beat out a lot of competition for his narrow role.

 

And besides, the writer thinks Hunt is a linebacker...LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Again: You are not drafting only first and second rounders. You are drafting in all seven rounds. Belichick (so did Ballard) traded down with some of his picks to acquire more picks, including 2nd rounders. It doesn't matter if it's your original pick or your acquired pick(s), if you hit them, then you hit them, if you miss, then you miss. If we remove that single 1/6 pick, the remaining total draft capitals of the 2 teams were comparable. Actually, quite close. The difference is, that Ballard found an all pro in the 2nd round, Belichick didn't. Ballard found quality starters in the 4th, 5th rounds, Belichick didn't.

 

I am basing it on my eyes, my judgement. You are right, unfortunately there is no universal measure for that. (There are statistics which we can look at, but mostly, it's subjective.) So in my opinion, the 2018 roster was not in the top15 NFL rosters, despite the Colts on paper, was a top8 team that year (reaching the divisional round). And in my opinion, the 2019 roster was a top third roster, despite the Colts finished below average. The QB made all the difference. Having a quality QB is that important.

 

(Regarding our reserve corners, sadly, we could see them quite a lot on the field due to injuries. More often than not, they did a pretty good job. For example, the Colts won the Chiefs game with practically their second team corners and safeties. Anyway, I think Hairston was a nice player for us. He was just the odd man out once Kenny Moore became an elite slot corner and we had Desir, Rock, Wilson, etc. )

The rest of the rounds were a bit of a wash. NE had more fourth round picks but we had more fifth and sixth rounders. Pretty much all the players in those groups with the possible exception of Mack are the definition of JAGS, some of them start on the colts but wouldn't necessarily start for the Patriots.

 

You are quite correct that Ballard hit an all pro in the second round. 100% his best pick and he gets loads of credit for it but if we're comparing the two teams let's not ignore that he had 8 shots to pick players in that round and the other team had 2. Got to acknowledge the difference in odds.

 

Unfortunately I think whatever subjective measure we want to use for the roster the objective results trump that. To say that better rosters get better results surely isn't a big step. Our roster is a bottom half squad, results say so.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

The rest of the rounds were a bit of a wash. NE had more fourth round picks but we had more fifth and sixth rounders. Pretty much all the players in those groups with the possible exception of Mack are the definition of JAGS, some of them start on the colts but wouldn't necessarily start for the Patriots.

 

You are quite correct that Ballard hit an all pro in the second round. 100% his best pick and he gets loads of credit for it but if we're comparing the two teams let's not ignore that he had 8 shots to pick players in that round and the other team had 2. Got to acknowledge the difference in odds.

 

Unfortunately I think whatever subjective measure we want to use for the roster the objective results trump that. To say that better rosters get better results surely isn't a big step. Our roster is a bottom half squad, results say so.

But he had 8 picks because he made trades to acquire them. 

 

 I disagree that our roster is bottom half.   We are missing some pieces that affected everything.   Mostly QB and D-line ability to rush the passer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Myles said:

But he had 8 picks because he made trades to acquire them. 

I agree. But he could trade for them because we were picking top 3.

 

Which is why comparing them to a team picking bottom 3 isn't an equal comparison.  When you're picking high not only can you get better players but you can also accumulate picks.

27 minutes ago, Myles said:

I disagree that our roster is bottom half.   We are missing some pieces that affected everything.   Mostly QB and D-line ability to rush the passer.

Missing key pieces is exactly what differentiates a poor roster from a good one. Not all 53 players for the Bengals are bad and not all 53 for the Ravens are amazing. Theres crossover.

Share this post


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

The rest of the rounds were a bit of a wash. NE had more fourth round picks but we had more fifth and sixth rounders. Pretty much all the players in those groups with the possible exception of Mack are the definition of JAGS, some of them start on the colts but wouldn't necessarily start for the Patriots.

 

You are quite correct that Ballard hit an all pro in the second round. 100% his best pick and he gets loads of credit for it but if we're comparing the two teams let's not ignore that he had 8 shots to pick players in that round and the other team had 2. Got to acknowledge the difference in odds.

 

Unfortunately I think whatever subjective measure we want to use for the roster the objective results trump that. To say that better rosters get better results surely isn't a big step. Our roster is a bottom half squad, results say so.

 

I appreciate that it's fun expressing an opinion,  and on this website everyone gets to do so.

 

But not every opinion is right,  and in the case of this thread,  your opinions here are completely false.

 

The JAGS, as you put it,  are not the guys Ballard has drafted.   They're the guys he has signed off the street to be the 2nd string and in some cases,  the 3rd string.    And once our front line starters were hit hard,  those 2nd and 3rd stringers wound up playing far more snaps than was expected.     We do not have a "bottom half squad"...     that's a fans view point.   And the "results say so" is another fan's viewpoint.     That's not the way NFL people view this.

 

Does this mean you think we had a top half roster last year?    Using your logic, we did.   So the primary difference between last year and this year is the loss one of ONE KEY PLAYER.    And when we lost Andrew Luck,  that hurt the overall roster.    And when we suffered a larger than normal amount of starters to injury that impacted the rest of the roster.

 

Our roster is a work in progress.   It's always been a work in progress since Ballard took over.  He had a big mess to clean up.    It was always going to take years to round into shape.    When Ballard says he didn't do enough to help the coaches and the starters,  he's not dumping on his starters.    He's saying he needed more talent.   More depth.    But it's hard to add those guys when the biggest change to the team happened two weeks before the season starts. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


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

 

I appreciate that it's fun expressing an opinion,  and on this website everyone gets to do so.

 

But not every opinion is right,  and in the case of this thread,  your opinions here are completely false.

 

The JAGS, as you put it,  are not the guys Ballard has drafted.   They're the guys he has signed off the street to be the 2nd string and in some cases,  the 3rd string.    And once our front line starters were hit hard,  those 2nd and 3rd stringers wound up playing far more snaps than was expected.     We do not have a "bottom half squad"...     that's a fans view point.   And the "results say so" is another fan's viewpoint.     That's not the way NFL people view this.

 

Does this mean you think we had a top half roster last year?    Using your logic, we did.   So the primary difference between last year and this year is the loss one of ONE KEY PLAYER.    And when we lost Andrew Luck,  that hurt the overall roster.    And when we suffered a larger than normal amount of starters to injury that impacted the rest of the roster.

 

Our roster is a work in progress.   It's always been a work in progress since Ballard took over.  He had a big mess to clean up.    It was always going to take years to round into shape.    When Ballard says he didn't do enough to help the coaches and the starters,  he's not dumping on his starters.    He's saying he needed more talent.   More depth.    But it's hard to add those guys when the biggest change to the team happened two weeks before the season starts. 

 

No he didn't.  That's a false narrative.  All new GMs come in to their new job under bad circumstances.  He has had no worse of a mess to clean up than any GM entering a new team.

 

He had several expensive positions already secured: a franchise QB, a LT, a pro bowl caliber C, and a #1 WR.  He had no legacy expensive FAs to cut and clean up dead cap space, of any significance.  He had no mandate (that we know of) to run any kind of offensive or defensive scheme.  He had no mandate linking him to a head coach he didn't want (at least past the first year of his contract).  He's had as much freedom to do what he wants as any GM in the NFL.  He's had as much freedom as Bill Polian, but nothing to clean up like Polian or Grigson had. 

 

He's only had to build.  He's needed to find only three or four expensive positions, all on defense; an EDGE, aLB, #1DB, and a DT . 

 

He's had three years of drafting with mid to high draft picks and gobs of cap space to find these players and to build his defensive roster (which has been his primary focus, precisely because of the expensive offensive pieces he inherited).  How he has drafted and how he has spent have been his choices. 

 

Whatever he has done the past three years he has done with no albatross.  Saying that he had to clean up a mess is the false narrative of creating a fake albatross for reasons that anybody can guess at.  

 

But I agree with you on this, it was always going to take years to build.  A GM can't rely on hitting on starters past round 2, so there is simply not enough draft picks with which to build solely through the draft in a short amount of time.  Any opinion that relied on him to find playoff caliber starters through round 4 or 5 was always a fool's opinion supported by no track record and only hope.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

No he didn't.  That's a false narrative.  All new GMs come in to their new job under bad circumstances.  He has had no worse of a mess to clean up than any GM entering a new team.

 

He had several expensive positions already secured: a franchise QB, a LT, a pro bowl caliber C, and a #1 WR.  He had no legacy expensive FAs to cut and clean up dead cap space, of any significance.  He had no mandate (that we know of) to run any kind of offensive or defensive scheme.  He had no mandate linking him to a head coach he didn't want (at least past the first year of his contract).  He's had as much freedom to do what he wants as any GM in the NFL.  He's had as much freedom as Bill Polian, but nothing to clean up like Polian or Grigson had. 

 

He's only had to build.  He's needed to find only three or four expensive positions, all on defense; an EDGE, aLB, #1DB, and a DT . 

 

He's had three years of drafting with mid to high draft picks and gobs of cap space to find these players and to build his defensive roster (which has been his primary focus, precisely because of the expensive offensive pieces he inherited).  How he has drafted and how he has spent have been his choices. 

 

Whatever he has done the past three years he has done with no albatross.  Saying that he had to clean up a mess is the false narrative of creating a fake albatross for reasons that anybody can guess at.  

 

But I agree with you on this, it was always going to take years to build.  A GM can't rely on hitting on starters past round 2, so there is simply not enough draft picks with which to build solely through the draft in a short amount of time.  Any opinion that relied on him to find playoff caliber starters through round 4 or 5 was always a fool's opinion supported by no track record and only hope.

 

The person who has the false narritve -- as always -- is you Doug.    This happens so that you can (A) defend Grigson, and (B) be contrarian as you love to do.    You see things almost no one else here sees.

 

So.....   No,  not all new GM's inherit the same level of mess.    Same with coaches.    Some situations are totally different.    Some are complete tear downs.    Some are in need of adjustments and a few key peice.    Some GM's have to find the right coach and staff.   They're all different.    So, your blanket statement, is almost by definition -- wrong.

 

The Colts team that Ballard inherited was judged to be old, slow, unathletic,  lacking skill and playmakers.     Does that sound like an easy fix.    Ballard announced when he was hired that it would take at least 3 years to get the roster where he needs it.    We can debate whether 2017 is Year One or is it 2018 because he didn't have the coach and staff he wanted.     We aren't where we are today because we lost our Franchise QB just before the season started.   And it's going to take time to figure out the QB position because great ones are hard to find.    There are more teams (32) then there typically are high quality starters...   (15-20?   Less?)

 

But your short grocery list of "all he needed to get" list shows a complete lack of understanding on how good teams are buit.    You have a fans viewpoint.    An uninformed fans viewpoint.

 

And you twist and turn and take comments completely out of context to serve your needs.

 

On the one hand,  you noted another posters comment that most of Ballard's draft picks are JAGS,  and then, as if it proves anything,  you cite Ballard's comment that he didn't do a good enough job building the roste as proof that Ballard admits his own guys are JAGs.    As if Ballard just incriminated himself and there you are to scream  "Ah HA!!   Caught you, red handed!"   It's just so dishonest, Doug.    And you should know it.

 

As I commented to the other poster in question....  Ballard fell short not on his draft picks,  but on his free agents brought in to provide depth.    There was not enough depth.   Especially when we were hit harder than most with injuries.

 

If you can't tell that Ballard is among the best at what he does,  not only can't I help you,  it's clear you have no interest and trying to understand that.    You love the way your mind works and the viewpoints it comes up with.   It doesn't matter that your views are widely considered out on the fringe of reality and not accepted around here.    That's fine.   But if you're looking for credibility because you think you're being honest....   you're going to strike out far more times than you hit,  if you'll forgive the mixed sports metaphor...

 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

What point in what other thread are you rambling about in this one?

 

At this point, we were 7-9 for a reason, because we have a roster that played like JAGs.  Because at this point, that's what they are.

 

What does that have to do with Grigson?  

 

Did you bring him up because your point is that we played like JAGs because Ballard is still saddled with some Grigson albatross after three years removed?  

 

Or see the roster being loaded with talent, its just that Luck up and retired and JB single handily destroyed the great play of the entire genius-made roster?

 

 

 

It's often so hard to figure out if you're playing dumb,  or if....   (Well...   I can't write my next sentence,  but you get the picture...) 

 

No other thread, Doug.    The answers are all here.

 

I only bring up Grigson,  because YOU love to defend him and YOU love to attack Ballard.    It'll be on your Colts Tombstone.     "He loved Ryan Grigson.   He hated Chris Ballard"

 

The JAGS who played poorly played poorly because for much of the season,  we had few receving weapons.   Hilton played just 11 games, and many of them he clearly wasn't 100 percent.    No Funchess,  almost no Campbell.   Basically no Cain.  No Fountain.   Rogers also got hurt.   Ebron was a shaddow of himself.     I mean,  how many weapons did we lose?    

 

The JAGS were the backup who got exposed because they played far more than expected.   Go ahead and blame Ballard.    He's already admitted it.

 

And despite your attempt at sarcasm over the fall off between Luck and Brissett,  yes,  that was a huge loss to the team.    Just as it would be to any team.    If you don't understand that,  then I can't help you.    No one can.    

 

PS -- your sarcastic shots about the "Genius GM" are just further proof of how hard you work to discredit Ballard.    It shows how little you know and understand good football.    And all your attempts to deny that you don't like Ballard....    almost no one believes that.    People see right through you here, Doug.    Your viewpoints are completely transparent,  despite your attempts to deny many of them.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 

The person who has the false narritve -- as always -- is you Doug.    This happens so that you can (A) defend Grigson, and (B) be contrarian as you love to do.    You see things almost no one else here sees.

 

So.....   No,  not all new GM's inherit the same level of mess.    Same with coaches.    Some situations are totally different.    Some are complete tear downs.    Some are in need of adjustments and a few key peice.    Some GM's have to find the right coach and staff.   They're all different.    So, your blanket statement, is almost by definition -- wrong.

 

The Colts team that Ballard inherited was judged to be old, slow, unathletic,  lacking skill and playmakers.     Does that sound like an easy fix.    Ballard announced when he was hired that it would take at least 3 years to get the roster where he needs it.    We can debate whether 2017 is Year One or is it 2018 because he didn't have the coach and staff he wanted.     We aren't where we are today because we lost our Franchise QB just before the season started.   And it's going to take time to figure out the QB position because great ones are hard to find.    There are more teams (32) then there typically are high quality starters...   (15-20?   Less?)

 

But your short grocery list of "all he needed to get" list shows a complete lack of understanding on how good teams are buit.    You have a fans viewpoint.    An uninformed fans viewpoint.

 

And you twist and turn and take comments completely out of context to serve your needs.

 

On the one hand,  you noted another posters comment that most of Ballard's draft picks are JAGS,  and then, as if it proves anything,  you cite Ballard's comment that he didn't do a good enough job building the roste as proof that Ballard admits his own guys are JAGs.    As if Ballard just incriminated himself and there you are to scream  "Ah HA!!   Caught you, red handed!"   It's just so dishonest, Doug.    And you should know it.

 

As I commented to the other poster in question....  Ballard fell short not on his draft picks,  but on his free agents brought in to provide depth.    There was not enough depth.   Especially when we were hit harder than most with injuries.

 

If you can't tell that Ballard is among the best at what he does,  not only can't I help you,  it's clear you have no interest and trying to understand that.    You love the way your mind works and the viewpoints it comes up with.   It doesn't matter that your views are widely considered out on the fringe of reality and not accepted around here.    That's fine.   But if you're looking for credibility because you think you're being honest....   you're going to strike out far more times than you hit,  if you'll forgive the mixed sports metaphor...

 

Your posts always seem to talk more about the person you're yelling at than the substance of the thread.  I'm surprised that you haven't been warned or banned, frankly.  You should find away to be less personal, then maybe you would be taken more seriously.

 

I'll try to keep all of your misrepresentations to a minimum.

 

I said all GMs inherit a mess.  That's why the other guy just got fired...duh.  I didn't say they all inherit the same level of mess.  You're making that up.  He inherited a top 5 QB in his 20s.  Some stat guy should look up how many new GMs have ever inherited that...unless it blows up a narrative of course.

 

The idea of how long it takes, or what he inherited, was offered by you.  Probably as a way to backpedal into defense mode. 

 

Changing schemes, by default, and it was his choice, empirically means that he inherited a roster that was moot.  It makes no sense to judge how much of an albatross Grigson laid on him because Ballard's decision to change the scheme made them useless even if they weren't old and slow.  He made that decision his second year.  He could have accelerated his build by keeping Anderson and Simon, and drafting Vontae's replacement in Marlon Humphrey instead of gambling on the next 34 Ed Reed...who doesn't even fit the defense he changed to after drafting him, which we will play a significant part of the time regardless.   

 

BTW, do you think Ballard sees that inconsistency in his approach with his FS?  I think he does, because I think he's neither dumb nor blind.

 

The point is, his current defense has nothing to do with what he did or did not inherit.  

 

Also, any player stats are inflated relative to the norm.  Anybody he drafted will start almost immediately because they will inherently be first in the new depth chart because there is nobody else to compete with.   The number of stats accumulated by that group is inflated because they never really had to seriously compete with anyone else in order to be in a position to accumulate stats.  Having said that, Hooker, his highest defensive pick, hasn't accumulated any in 2.5 years.  The fact that so many pundit/media types thought he was worth a top ten pick doesn't validate the pick, it simply shows that as a group, they can be wrong......and in great numbers.  Being wrong in great numbers can happen with many things.

 

But none of that matters.   Nearly every player listed in this thread as support for his eye for talent is here because of his choices.  That list hasn't accomplished much of anything.  

 

And no, I don't look to criticize Ballard.  I have said what he said, the roster isn't where it should be.  Ballard said as much about his roster.  In response to some saying we could have been 10 and 6, he said given the closeness of the games, we could have been 4 and 12.  Does that sound like a GM who thinks he's a QB away from contention, if you think he's one hell of a sincere guy?

 

So here you are, trying to tell me how dumb I am when Ballard agrees with me.  You've gotten to a point to where you have to argue with Ballard himself just to continue to carry that three year old bucket of water that he's a genius.  That's some sort of biased narrative going on upstairs that I'm not familiar with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

I appreciate that it's fun expressing an opinion,  and on this website everyone gets to do so.

 

But not every opinion is right,  and in the case of this thread,  your opinions here are completely false.

 

The JAGS, as you put it,  are not the guys Ballard has drafted.   They're the guys he has signed off the street to be the 2nd string and in some cases,  the 3rd string.    And once our front line starters were hit hard,  those 2nd and 3rd stringers wound up playing far more snaps than was expected.     We do not have a "bottom half squad"...     that's a fans view point.   And the "results say so" is another fan's viewpoint.     That's not the way NFL people view this.

 

Does this mean you think we had a top half roster last year?    Using your logic, we did.   So the primary difference between last year and this year is the loss one of ONE KEY PLAYER.    And when we lost Andrew Luck,  that hurt the overall roster.    And when we suffered a larger than normal amount of starters to injury that impacted the rest of the roster.

 

Our roster is a work in progress.   It's always been a work in progress since Ballard took over.  He had a big mess to clean up.    It was always going to take years to round into shape.    When Ballard says he didn't do enough to help the coaches and the starters,  he's not dumping on his starters.    He's saying he needed more talent.   More depth.    But it's hard to add those guys when the biggest change to the team happened two weeks before the season starts. 

 

When we're talking about the roster we're talking about the WHOLE roster. Not separating out 1st, 2nd and 3rd stringers. So no, we never had an above average roster, you could argue that we had an above average starting group around the point we were but injuries are to be expected, you've got to have the next man up attitude and also need to account for the possibility that teams simply figured us out. Taking the full season instead of a carefully selected sample size indicates we are where we are.

 

The JAGS are both. We've got JAGS that we've drafted and we've got JAGS that we've signed.

 

Well yes....one key player would help the roster and massively affect results. That's why they're called key players I suppose. The difference between most teams is a couple of really good players at spots that are crucial. Unfortunately instead of very good players at those spots we have standard, middle of the road guys there.

 

Missing 4 top range players for example isn't a sign of a good roster, they're the players that are by definition the most difficult to get.

Share this post


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

When we're talking about the roster we're talking about the WHOLE roster. Not separating out 1st, 2nd and 3rd stringers. So no, we never had an above average roster, you could argue that we had an above average starting group around the point we were but injuries are to be expected, you've got to have the next man up attitude and also need to account for the possibility that teams simply figured us out. Taking the full season instead of a carefully selected sample size indicates we are where we are.

 

The JAGS are both. We've got JAGS that we've drafted and we've got JAGS that we've signed.

 

Well yes....one key player would help the roster and massively affect results. That's why they're called key players I suppose. The difference between most teams is a couple of really good players at spots that are crucial. Unfortunately instead of very good players at those spots we have standard, middle of the road guys there.

 

Missing 4 top range players for example isn't a sign of a good roster, they're the players that are by definition the most difficult to get.

 

Yes...   of course we have JAGS,  all teams do.

 

The questions are who and how many?    But when I listed almost all of Ballard's draft picks YOUR RESPONSE was....    "other than Nelson and Leonard,  aren't all the rest JAGS?"

 

I'm sorry,  but the moment you said that,  is the moment you lost the argument.   It's the moment you clearly demonstrated how little you know about football.    I'm sorry,  but that's just the plan blunt facts.    Your assertion was spectacularly wrong.

 

From the first class:   Mack is JAG?    No.   Walker is a JAG?   No.   Hooker is a JAG?   Nope.   He may not be what we hoped he'd be,  but he's not a JAG.

 

From the 2nd class:   Smith is a JAG?    No.   Turay is a JAG?    No.   Even Lewis isn't a JAG or a bust.   He's a disappointment because he can't stay healthy,  but if you understand the meaning of the word,  then he's not a JAG.    Hines is not a JAG.   Neither is Wilkens.   Fountain has been hurt, so no.   Cain was hurt and grabbed off of the PS,  so no.     If you want to call the two 7th round LBers JAGS -- that's your perogative,  but I doubt Ballard would agree.

 

From the 3rd class:    First, and let's be clear,  you're not supposed to judge any rookie unless they're a big hit.  You're not supposed to judge young players until AFTER their 3rd year.   And you're juding them two years early.    But here we go.   Rock was a disappointment,  but that doesn't make hm a JAG.   He wasn't supposed to play this much, but he got thrown in before he was ready.    Not a JAG.    Ben is learning and barely played,  not a JAG.   Parris couldn't stay healthy.   Disappointing but not a JAG.   Okereke is a Ballard favorite.   He was very pleased with his rookie season.   Not a JAG.   Same with Willis,  not a JAG.   Even Tell has played well.   Not a JAG either.    Speed showed Ballard enough to say how much he's looking forward to seeing him develope.   

 

I'm sorry,  but as far as the JAGS are concerned,  they're not among the draft picks.   We were more injured than most teams.   Ballard admitted, he didn't do a good enough job on depth.  The back-ups.    The man owns it. 

 

Not sure what more you want?    You're can call the key players JAGS all you want.   And you'd be wrong every time you do it.     Sorry,  but you and I see the same thing completely different.   Not much more I can say.    We just  seriously disagree.

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2020 at 4:14 PM, ClaytonColt said:

Apart from Leonard and Nelson isn't that basically just a long list of JAGs at this point? 

You don't seem to have a clue on what a JAG is. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Your posts always seem to talk more about the person you're yelling at than the substance of the thread.  I'm surprised that you haven't been warned or banned, frankly.  You should find away to be less personal, then maybe you would be taken more seriously.

 

I'll try to keep all of your misrepresentations to a minimum.

 

I said all GMs inherit a mess.  That's why the other guy just got fired...duh.  I didn't say they all inherit the same level of mess.  You're making that up.  He inherited a top 5 QB in his 20s.  Some stat guy should look up how many new GMs have ever inherited that...unless it blows up a narrative of course.

 

The idea of how long it takes, or what he inherited, was offered by you.  Probably as a way to backpedal into defense mode. 

 

Changing schemes, by default, and it was his choice, empirically means that he inherited a roster that was moot.  It makes no sense to judge how much of an albatross Grigson laid on him because Ballard's decision to change the scheme made them useless even if they weren't old and slow.  He made that decision his second year.  He could have accelerated his build by keeping Anderson and Simon, and drafting Vontae's replacement in Marlon Humphrey instead of gambling on the next 34 Ed Reed...who doesn't even fit the defense he changed to after drafting him, which we will play a significant part of the time regardless.   

 

BTW, do you think Ballard sees that inconsistency in his approach with his FS?  I think he does, because I think he's neither dumb nor blind.

 

The point is, his current defense has nothing to do with what he did or did not inherit.  

 

Also, any player stats are inflated relative to the norm.  Anybody he drafted will start almost immediately because they will inherently be first in the new depth chart because there is nobody else to compete with.   The number of stats accumulated by that group is inflated because they never really had to seriously compete with anyone else in order to be in a position to accumulate stats.  Having said that, Hooker, his highest defensive pick, hasn't accumulated any in 2.5 years.  The fact that so many pundit/media types thought he was worth a top ten pick doesn't validate the pick, it simply shows that as a group, they can be wrong......and in great numbers.  Being wrong in great numbers can happen with many things.

 

But none of that matters.   Nearly every player listed in this thread as support for his eye for talent is here because of his choices.  That list hasn't accomplished much of anything.  

 

And no, I don't look to criticize Ballard.  I have said what he said, the roster isn't where it should be.  Ballard said as much about his roster.  In response to some saying we could have been 10 and 6, he said given the closeness of the games, we could have been 4 and 12.  Does that sound like a GM who thinks he's a QB away from contention, if you think he's one hell of a sincere guy?

 

So here you are, trying to tell me how dumb I am when Ballard agrees with me.  You've gotten to a point to where you have to argue with Ballard himself just to continue to carry that three year old bucket of water that he's a genius.  That's some sort of biased narrative going on upstairs that I'm not familiar with.

 

Doug....

 

If it gives you and others who are not fond of me any comfort,  I've been suspended more this year than any other year I've been here.   

 

And if you think I'm getting personal, I'm sorry.   But I often find it hard to contain myself when I think someone is deliberately lying to me.   Being dishonest with me.   Not arguing or debating fairly.    Drives me crazy.    You're not alone here.    I have my issues with other posters here as well over this.

 

If I have to go through your whole post to tear it apart piece by piece, I'll be here all night. and it's already after 1a my time.     So, I'll just deal with an early paragraph of yours to show you how crazy you drive me....    Ready?     Here it is...

 

"I said all GMs inherit a mess.  That's why the other guy just got fired...duh.  I didn't say they all inherit the same level of mess.  You're making that up.  He inherited a top 5 QB in his 20s.  Some stat guy should look up how many new GMs have ever inherited that...unless it blows up a narrative of course."

 

You love to criticize Ballard for seasons 1 and 3.   Now,  riddle me this, Batman.   Which one key player did not play a single down in seasons 1 and 3?    It's the guy you're talking about in the paragraph.   The 20-something QB who is top-5.    Ballard didn't have the services of Andrew Luck either in Seasons 1 or 3.    And he found that out just before each season started.   But you never mention those things.  Having an Andrew Luck but nothing being able to use him is not helpful, nor us CBS fault.   I find that dishonest.   You're telling half the story.   The half that fits your narrative.  Not the half that doesn't help your viewpoint.    Sorry,  but that's a very Doug-like thing you're doing.   Drives me a little crazy.

 

As to the GM's comment,  I believed that's what you inferred.    That all GM's have problems isn't some genius insight, Doug.   You have to understand how different each situation is.   And you wrote that Chris Ballard didn't inherit a bad situation.   And I had to explain in another post how and why that view is false.   Sorry,  it just is.

 

Here's an argument that is a favorite of yours.   You used it again in your post.    That Ballard drafted Malik Hooker who doesn't fit his defense.  You've been posting that for three years straight.   And for three years posters have been explaining that Ballard said the key to his defense was creating turnovers.   More turnovers lead to more possessions which leads to more points.   In his last year in college, Malik Hooker led the country in interceptions.    There's the fit in his defense.   He creates turnovers.   That's why Ballard drafted him.   Now, the fact that he doesn't done that as much as we want is an entirely different argument.   But you've ignored explanations from tons of different posters here as to why your Hooker argument is wrong.   And each time you act like it's the first time you've ever said it.   And you wonder why people get frustrated with you?

 

I think you attack Ballard because you think it helps Grigson look better in hind-sight.   I think you make shocking arguments.  You like to be different, contrarian.   And to be clear -- and this is something I've written before -- but from time to time you seem to imply that your issues with posters are mostly with me.   That I'm harder on you than others are.   That may or may not be true,  but I'll say this again...   You're often involved in a thread where it's you versus almost everyone else.    And I'm either (A) not in the discussion at all,  zero posts,  or (B) barely in the discussion, maybe one or two posts in a long thread.  That happens more than you realize.    So,  you're fully capable of getting yourself into trouble with this community without me ever saying a word.   This is not a "me" issue, Doug.   This is a "you" issue.   Always has been.   I'm sorry.

 

As I said to Clayton Colt,  you and I see the world differently.   We see the same thing differently.    We are not going to be a Love Connection.  

 

PS....   in this post that I’m responding to you literally wrote  that you think Ballard agrees with you.   Those are the type of comments you often write that make people roll their eyes and wonder how you came to such a conclusion? He doesn’t Doug.   And no matter how many times you repeat that, he doesn’t.   Sorry. 

Share this post


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

rom the first class:   Mack is JAG?    No.   Walker is a JAG?   No.   Hooker is a JAG?   Nope.   He may not be what we hoped he'd be,  but he's not a JAG.

 

From the 2nd class:   Smith is a JAG?    No.   Turay is a JAG?    No.   Even Lewis isn't a JAG or a bust.   He's a disappointment because he can't stay healthy,  but if you understand the meaning of the word,  then he's not a JAG.    Hines is not a JAG.   Neither is Wilkens.   Fountain has been hurt, so no.   Cain was hurt and grabbed off of the PS,  so no.     If you want to call the two 7th round LBers JAGS -- that's your perogative,  but I doubt Ballard would agree.

 

From the 3rd class:    First, and let's be clear,  you're not supposed to judge any rookie unless they're a big hit.  You're not supposed to judge young players until AFTER their 3rd year.   And you're juding them two years early.    But here we go.   Rock was a disappointment,  but that doesn't make hm a JAG.   He wasn't supposed to play this much, but he got thrown in before he was ready.    Not a JAG.    Ben is learning and barely played,  not a JAG.   Parris couldn't stay healthy.   Disappointing but not a JAG.   Okereke is a Ballard favorite.   He was very pleased with his rookie season.   Not a JAG.   Same with Willis,  not a JAG.   Even Tell has played well.   Not a JAG either.    Speed showed Ballard enough to say how much he's looking forward to seeing him develope.   

 

Yes. They're all the very definition of "just another guy".

 

How many of those would be difficult to replace in terms of production? Smith? Everyone else is a bog standard, middle to low end NFL player. 

 

We seem to developing a very low bar for what represents "good" around here these days. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

 

Yes. They're all the very definition of "just another guy".

 

How many of those would be difficult to replace in terms of production? Smith? Everyone else is a bog standard, middle to low end NFL player. 

 

We seem to developing a very low bar for what represents "good" around here these days. 

 

 

 

In the spirit of of what represents "good"...   which of course, I didn't say they all are...   I just said you don't know what a JAG is.     Just Another Guy.      They're not.    As another posted said tonight,   you don't know what the meaning of that word is.

 

Most of those guys are not JAGS.    The backups might be,  but not most the starters.

 

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.    We see things differently.   So be it.

 

Share this post


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

 

Doug....

 

If it gives you and others who are not fond of me any comfort,  I've been suspended more this year than any other year I've been here.   

 

And if you think I'm getting personal, I'm sorry.   But I often find it hard to contain myself when I think someone is deliberately lying to me.   Being dishonest with me.   Not arguing or debating fairly.    Drives me crazy.    You're not alone here.    I have my issues with other posters here as well over this.

 

If I have to go through your whole post to tear it apart piece by piece, I'll be here all night. and it's already after 1a my time.     So, I'll just deal with an early paragraph of yours to show you how crazy you drive me....    Ready?     Here it is...

 

"I said all GMs inherit a mess.  That's why the other guy just got fired...duh.  I didn't say they all inherit the same level of mess.  You're making that up.  He inherited a top 5 QB in his 20s.  Some stat guy should look up how many new GMs have ever inherited that...unless it blows up a narrative of course."

 

You love to criticize Ballard for seasons 1 and 3.   Now,  riddle me this, Batman.   Which one key player did not play a single down in seasons 1 and 3?    It's the guy you're talking about in the paragraph.   The 20-something QB who is top-5.    Ballard didn't have the services of Andrew Luck either in Seasons 1 or 3.    And he found that out just before each season started.   But you never mention those things.  Having an Andrew Luck but nothing being able to use him is not helpful, nor us CBS fault.   I find that dishonest.   You're telling half the story.   The half that fits your narrative.  Not the half that doesn't help your viewpoint.    Sorry,  but that's a very Doug-like thing you're doing.   Drives me a little crazy.

 

As to the GM's comment,  I believed that's what you inferred.    That all GM's have problems isn't some genius insight, Doug.   You have to understand how different each situation is.   And you wrote that Chris Ballard didn't inherit a bad situation.   And I had to explain in another post how and why that view is false.   Sorry,  it just is.

 

Here's an argument that is a favorite of yours.   You used it again in your post.    That Ballard drafted Malik Hooker who doesn't fit his defense.  You've been posting that for three years straight.   And for three years posters have been explaining that Ballard said the key to his defense was creating turnovers.   More turnovers lead to more possessions which leads to more points.   In his last year in college, Malik Hooker led the country in interceptions.    There's the fit in his defense.   He creates turnovers.   That's why Ballard drafted him.   Now, the fact that he doesn't done that as much as we want is an entirely different argument.   But you've ignored explanations from tons of different posters here as to why your Hooker argument is wrong.   And each time you act like it's the first time you've ever said it.   And you wonder why people get frustrated with you?

 

I think you attack Ballard because you think it helps Grigson look better in hind-sight.   I think you make shocking arguments.  You like to be different, contrarian.   And to be clear -- and this is something I've written before -- but from time to time you seem to imply that your issues with posters are mostly with me.   That I'm harder on you than others are.   That may or may not be true,  but I'll say this again...   You're often involved in a thread where it's you versus almost everyone else.    And I'm either (A) not in the discussion at all,  zero posts,  or (B) barely in the discussion, maybe one or two posts in a long thread.  That happens more than you realize.    So,  you're fully capable of getting yourself into trouble with this community without me ever saying a word.   This is not a "me" issue, Doug.   This is a "you" issue.   Always has been.   I'm sorry.

 

As I said to Clayton Colt,  you and I see the world differently.   We see the same thing differently.    We are not going to be a Love Connection.  

 

PS....   in this post that I’m responding to you literally wrote  that you think Ballard agrees with you.   Those are the type of comments you often write that make people roll their eyes and wonder how you came to such a conclusion? He doesn’t Doug.   And no matter how many times you repeat that, he doesn’t.   Sorry. 

Ok enough.  This typical bit by bit back and forth has gotten off of the rails, back to some usual argument you have with me in whatever thread I participate in that has to with Ballard, Grigson, or Hooker.

 

I got into this thread, to defend the thought that was being attacked when a comment made reference to AT THIS POINT.  So lets's stay on track by reviewing things that we all pretty much believe to be true:

 

1) Ballard said that he wants to build through the draft.  By default, that pretty much means that any FA he signs is going to be stop gap until he finds the replacement through the draft.  He has been signing FA to team friendly contracts, so any poor performance or great performance by any of the FAs goes with the territory.  It doesn't speak to a good or bad eye for talent.

 

2) Ballard has said it would take three years to build the core of the roster.  He said when he got here that he was left with no young core players.  Except he was.  He was left with Luck, Kelly, TY, and AC, and even Doyle.  RG signed defensive FA to win quickly when he had his elite QB on hand and a mandate from the owner to run a 34.  There was no time to build through the draft because the window of opportunity was always "now" when you have Luck.  Ballard wasn't left with any more of a mess than anybody else.  He was left with old players on one side of the ball.  He's kept Haeg and Clark as depth. He was left with the residue of a win now strategy that, frankly, resulted in the Colts winning "now" more than they didn't without mortgaging the future with dead cap hits.

 

3) Ballard has said he wants to build though the draft....and we acknowledge that it takes at least three years to judge a draft.  So, if we stay true to the timeline, we are only capable of judging the first draft.  If you want to accelerate the timeline by accepting that Nelson, Smith, and Leonard are good player, I'm fine with it.  Although it seems Leonard had a sophomore slump and some people still don't trust Smith at RT.  Nothing emerged from the 2019 draft to suggest that Ballard has an eye for talent.  The guys he picked are performing at where you would expect them to perform given their draft slot where there isn't a whole lot of competition in front of them.  Some are disappointed with Ben and Parris.  Okerke has been pretty good for the role he was asked to play.

 

Its undetermined.  At this point, its been three years, and people want to say that he does have an eye for talent, which hasn't been shown to be true at this point by the three year buckets I just described.  I don't think that too many are saying he sucks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I said all GMs inherit a mess.  That's why the other guy just got fired...duh.  I didn't say they all inherit the same level of mess.  You're making that up.  He inherited a top 5 QB in his 20s.

 

No, not all GMs inherit a mess. Brett Veach inherited a championship caliber team when John Dorsey got fired. Whoever will take the Texans GM job soon, won't inherit a mess. He will have to solve some puzzles, but that Texans team is a playoff team even with an average HC. These two are not exceptions, there are other GM's, who inherited quite decent situations. Ballard didn't. The Colts were a mess.

 

Btw, he inherited a very talented, INJURED QB, who's future was questionable. 

  

11 hours ago, DougDew said:

The idea of how long it takes, or what he inherited, was offered by you.  Probably as a way to backpedal into defense mode. 

 

It was offered by Irsay. He was the one who declared the team as a mess. And he was the one, who defined a 4 years timeframe to get back to contendership level. He expressed this multiple times. It doesn't mean he didn't expect _some_ results on the way, but the goal was (and still is) to build a contender by 2021.

 

19 hours ago, DougDew said:

Respectfully, that article was written prior to this season, and nearly every player mentioned outside of the three we all know are good, Nelson, Leonard, and Smith; have not improved this season or have regressed.

 

Should I say your are wrong again Doug? Nelson had a fantastic rookie year, but his second year was by far better. He was the most dominant, almost unanimous pick in the entire all pro voting. It's practically a consensus by now, that regarding guards, there is Nelson, and there are the rest. I'm not saying that, most experst say that.

 

And Smith had a better season too, than his rookie season was. According to pff, and most analysts too.

 

It was only Leonard, who had a bit of a stepback, but he still become a 2nd team all pro, and most people say, that he had so fantastic second part of the season, that if he wasn't injured in the first half, he'd be an easy first team all pro again.

 

So no, no regression. (And no regression from Mack, Walker, Hines neither. Regarding Turay, before the injury, he had the best pass rushing grade amongs all rushers in the NFL. Better than T.J. Watt, Shaquil Barrett, or the Bosas. It's disappoinging / unfortunate that he got injured - again -, but he DID improve a lot from year 1 to year 2.)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

The rest of the rounds were a bit of a wash. NE had more fourth round picks but we had more fifth and sixth rounders. Pretty much all the players in those groups with the possible exception of Mack are the definition of JAGS, some of them start on the colts but wouldn't necessarily start for the Patriots.

 

You are quite correct that Ballard hit an all pro in the second round. 100% his best pick and he gets loads of credit for it but if we're comparing the two teams let's not ignore that he had 8 shots to pick players in that round and the other team had 2. Got to acknowledge the difference in odds.

 

As I said, the draft is not only round 1 or round 2. Do you know what draft capital means? It means, that each pick has a unique value comparable to the other picks (google for "trade value chart"). You take all picks of every teams, and sum their picks by each picks individual value. Do it for all teams, and you'll have a comparable number, representing the total "pool pf resources" each team have.

 

In 2019, the Patriots had the 9th most draft capital, the Colts had the 10th most capital. So actually, the Patriots had a little more than the Colts. In 2017, the Colts had the 2nd most draft capital, but the Patriots wasn't far behind, they had the 6th most draft capital. If we remove the 1/6 pick, the Colts fall behind the Patriots in draft capital. In 2017, the Colts had the 15th most, and the Patriots had the 31th most (or 2nd smallest) capital (mostly because they traded their 1st pick away for Cooks).

 

So, altogether, the Colts had more capital in these 3 years altogether than the Patriots, but, as I said, if we remove the Nelson pick, then the total capital becomes similar. Actually, very close. It doesn't matter if one had X second round and the other had Y or vice versa, of you have similar draft capital, you have similar chances (less picks with better chances vs more with less chances). If one team trades down, they usually keep the draft capital, they only swap picks with the same (total) values. (That's the purpose of the mentioned "draft trade value chart". To make deals of same draft capitals). 

 

So I was correct, that if we remove Nelson from the equiation, then the two teams had similar draft capital. And if we compare what they did with that similar draft capital, then Ballard still wins by a mile.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peterk2011 said:

In 2017, the Colts had the 2nd most draft capital, but the Patriots wasn't far behind

Can you show me how you worked that out?

 

They only made 4 picks and didn't have a 1st, 2nd or 5th round pick. How can they have a lot of draft capital? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know of a site that grades GM's?

I would bet that Ballard has hit on more than most GM's.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

You take all picks of every teams, and sum their picks by each picks individual value. Do it for all teams, and you'll have a comparable number,

Just done it using the drafttek trade chart.

 

NE had picks totalling 3801.4 between 2017 and 2019.

 

Indy had 6891.8 (5291.8 if we randomly remove the Nelson pick for some reason)

 

Nowhere near as far as I can see.

Share this post


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

 

Yes...   of course we have JAGS,  all teams do.

 

The questions are who and how many?    But when I listed almost all of Ballard's draft picks YOUR RESPONSE was....    "other than Nelson and Leonard,  aren't all the rest JAGS?"

 

I'm sorry,  but the moment you said that,  is the moment you lost the argument.   It's the moment you clearly demonstrated how little you know about football.    I'm sorry,  but that's just the plan blunt facts.    Your assertion was spectacularly wrong.

 

From the first class:   Mack is JAG?    No.   Walker is a JAG?   No.   Hooker is a JAG?   Nope.   He may not be what we hoped he'd be,  but he's not a JAG.

 

From the 2nd class:   Smith is a JAG?    No.   Turay is a JAG?    No.   Even Lewis isn't a JAG or a bust.   He's a disappointment because he can't stay healthy,  but if you understand the meaning of the word,  then he's not a JAG.    Hines is not a JAG.   Neither is Wilkens.   Fountain has been hurt, so no.   Cain was hurt and grabbed off of the PS,  so no.     If you want to call the two 7th round LBers JAGS -- that's your perogative,  but I doubt Ballard would agree.

 

From the 3rd class:    First, and let's be clear,  you're not supposed to judge any rookie unless they're a big hit.  You're not supposed to judge young players until AFTER their 3rd year.   And you're juding them two years early.    But here we go.   Rock was a disappointment,  but that doesn't make hm a JAG.   He wasn't supposed to play this much, but he got thrown in before he was ready.    Not a JAG.    Ben is learning and barely played,  not a JAG.   Parris couldn't stay healthy.   Disappointing but not a JAG.   Okereke is a Ballard favorite.   He was very pleased with his rookie season.   Not a JAG.   Same with Willis,  not a JAG.   Even Tell has played well.   Not a JAG either.    Speed showed Ballard enough to say how much he's looking forward to seeing him develope.   

 

I'm sorry,  but as far as the JAGS are concerned,  they're not among the draft picks.   We were more injured than most teams.   Ballard admitted, he didn't do a good enough job on depth.  The back-ups.    The man owns it. 

 

Not sure what more you want?    You're can call the key players JAGS all you want.   And you'd be wrong every time you do it.     Sorry,  but you and I see the same thing completely different.   Not much more I can say.    We just  seriously disagree.

 

 

 Just a guy. Average, no more than that. Not that hard to replace.
 
  Okereke. PFF 7th highest grade. Came on strong in sittuations. Above average with a high ceiling. 
  Walker  PFF 44th rated LB.  In the top 68, only 2 LB's graded lower against the run.
 So his coverage skills help raise him to 44th. Ouch!  Just a Guy obviously.
  Hooker PFF 36th rated S. And was playing very poorly the last half the season.
  Sorry but he was just a JAG.
  Willis. Nice kid, played decent. Tied with Hooker at 36th. Just a Guy right now.
   Lewis. Hasn't earned even a JAG rating. He has shown almost nothing when he has played.
  Hines. He makes some plays but so do a lot of RB's. He is a solid Average. A JAG.
  Wilkins. He might be considered an average RB. But few here would want him to be the starter even after injuries. Very much a JAG.
   Banogu was drafted pretty high. Earned the PFF 103rd spot. Less than a JAG.
  Campbell was highly drafted. Didn't earn JAG level yet.
  Tell had a game he made a few plays. And looked lost just as much. Less than a JAG. Nice size and speed, hopefully he becomes better than Walker.
    Rant all you wish, you have your own grading scale based on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, waittilnextyear said:

 

 Just a guy. Average, no more than that. Not that hard to replace.
 
  Okereke. PFF 7th highest grade. Came on strong in sittuations. Above average with a high ceiling. 
  Walker  PFF 44th rated LB.  In the top 68, only 2 LB's graded lower against the run.
 So his coverage skills help raise him to 44th. Ouch!  Just a Guy obviously.
  Hooker PFF 36th rated S. And was playing very poorly the last half the season.
  Sorry but he was just a JAG.
  Willis. Nice kid, played decent. Tied with Hooker at 36th. Just a Guy right now.
   Lewis. Hasn't earned even a JAG rating. He has shown almost nothing when he has played.
  Hines. He makes some plays but so do a lot of RB's. He is a solid Average. A JAG.
  Wilkins. He might be considered an average RB. But few here would want him to be the starter even after injuries. Very much a JAG.
   Banogu was drafted pretty high. Earned the PFF 103rd spot. Less than a JAG.
  Campbell was highly drafted. Didn't earn JAG level yet.
  Tell had a game he made a few plays. And looked lost just as much. Less than a JAG. Nice size and speed, hopefully he becomes better than Walker.
    Rant all you wish, you have your own grading scale based on...

What you’ve done is what most fans do.   What is this guy right now.   This  minute.  
 

That’s not what NFL people do.   That’s what fans do.  Especially disappointed fans.   
 

So...   let’s take Anthony Walker.   You say 44th tank makes him a JAG.   If roughly half if the teams are running a 4-3 that's 48 linebackers.   The other half are running 3-4’s...   that’s 64 more.  
 

Thats 112 starting linebackers.   You still insist that a 44th ranking makes him a JAG?   Because if you do, then you’re in the company of many other posters here who don’t know what a JAG is.   Sorry.

Just.   Another.   Guy. 

 

If you heard Chris Ballard speak of him a week ago you’d never think Walker was a Jag. 


PS — on a personal level...   great name you’ve chosen.   I first used it about 30 years ago for my Fantasy Baseball Team.   Sorry we disagree. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am 99% sure there are some posters who will need new keyboards due to wear and tear before the combine even starts this year. That's impressive. Kill em with kindness is a lesson not learned by all. We can be better and agree to disagree sometimes!

Share this post


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

What you’ve done is what most fans do.   What is this guy right now.   This  minute.  
 

That’s not what NFL people do.   That’s what fans do.  Especially disappointed fans.   
 

So...   let’s take Anthony Walker.   You say 44th tank makes him a JAG.   If roughly half if the teams are running a 4-3 that's 48 linebackers.   The other half are running 3-4’s...   that’s 64 more.  
 

Thats 112 starting linebackers.   You still insist that a 44th ranking makes him a JAG?   Because if you do, then you’re in the company of many other posters here who don’t know what a JAG is.   Sorry.

Just.   Another.   Guy. 

 

If you heard Chris Ballard speak of him a week ago you’d never think Walker was a Jag. 


PS — on a personal level...   great name you’ve chosen.   I first used it about 30 years ago for my Fantasy Baseball Team.   Sorry we disagree. 

 

   Since i can't project what anyone will become, i do prefer to go with what i see for now.
  Walker is someone that we can agree to like his trend a bit.
 We noticed his tackles bumped at seasons end. I'm always reminded of Ray Lewis, after a season of low stats, complaining mightily about the guys in front of him not eating up blocks so he could do what he was known for.
  It looked to me like Hunt was getting more 1st down snaps late in the season and doing some good pounding on the inside. If i saw this right, it would help explain Walkers surge in tackles. There is always more to the story.
  That said, Walker being called one of the better LB's this season is a significant stretch for me. He would fall more into a sea of average.
 Okereke does make him more valuable because we can sometimes get him off the field in situations he is the most vulnerable in.
 Walkers lack of speed locks him into being vulnerable on any play, but let's project that his effectiveness gets better with better play in front of him and with even more game experience. Getting to the spot is very mental for his position, so we can have reasonable expectation of upside. 
  I guess i would hope he gets near the level of Danny Trevathon who i liked during his best seasons in Denver. My eye test sees Walker as probably a whole step slower to the sidelines and a lesser athlete in coverage. Just my thoughts. And Denver still let him go after his 1st contract. 
 And yes Ballard loves the guy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2020 at 10:38 AM, Peterk2011 said:

 

No, not all GMs inherit a mess. Brett Veach inherited a championship caliber team when John Dorsey got fired. Whoever will take the Texans GM job soon, won't inherit a mess. He will have to solve some puzzles, but that Texans team is a playoff team even with an average HC. These two are not exceptions, there are other GM's, who inherited quite decent situations. Ballard didn't. The Colts were a mess.

 

Btw, he inherited a very talented, INJURED QB, who's future was questionable. 

  

 

It was offered by Irsay. He was the one who declared the team as a mess. And he was the one, who defined a 4 years timeframe to get back to contendership level. He expressed this multiple times. It doesn't mean he didn't expect _some_ results on the way, but the goal was (and still is) to build a contender by 2021.

 

 

Should I say your are wrong again Doug? Nelson had a fantastic rookie year, but his second year was by far better. He was the most dominant, almost unanimous pick in the entire all pro voting. It's practically a consensus by now, that regarding guards, there is Nelson, and there are the rest. I'm not saying that, most experst say that.

 

And Smith had a better season too, than his rookie season was. According to pff, and most analysts too.

 

It was only Leonard, who had a bit of a stepback, but he still become a 2nd team all pro, and most people say, that he had so fantastic second part of the season, that if he wasn't injured in the first half, he'd be an easy first team all pro again.

 

So no, no regression. (And no regression from Mack, Walker, Hines neither. Regarding Turay, before the injury, he had the best pass rushing grade amongs all rushers in the NFL. Better than T.J. Watt, Shaquil Barrett, or the Bosas. It's disappoinging / unfortunate that he got injured - again -, but he DID improve a lot from year 1 to year 2.)

Neslon:  I don't give Ballard for that one.

Smith: high 2nd round pick. He should performing as he has been

Leonard: play maker granted.  However, I think he is some what over rated as he is a liability against the run. To me if u want to call him elite he should be elite at both the run and the pass; he is not.

Now name me another elite player out of Ballard's numerous picks???  I don't see it yet.  Ballard will b judged after the 2020 draft.  To  me it will define if he is indeed a good GM

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Neslon:  I don't give Ballard for that one.

Smith: high 2nd round pick. He should performing as he has been

Leonard: play maker granted.  However, I think he is some what over rated as he is a liability against the run. To me if u want to call him elite he should be elite at both the run and the pass; he is not.

Now name me another elite player out of Ballard's numerous picks???  I don't see it yet.  Ballard will b judged after the 2020 draft.  To  me it will define if he is indeed a good GM

Wow.    How unbelievably sad. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

It sure is...we finished 7 and 9.

You cant judge the GM by the teams record. 

Way too many factors to look at. 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Neslon:  I don't give Ballard for that one.

Smith: high 2nd round pick. He should performing as he has been

Leonard: play maker granted.  However, I think he is some what over rated as he is a liability against the run. To me if u want to call him elite he should be elite at both the run and the pass; he is not.

Now name me another elite player out of Ballard's numerous picks???  I don't see it yet.  Ballard will b judged after the 2020 draft.  To  me it will define if he is indeed a good GM

 

Are you serously asking this question? Man, the success rate in the first round is around 45 to 65% (depending on which position, which period). In later rounds success rate drops dramatically. In rounds 5 to 7 it's no better than 10-12%. And success has nothing to do with finding "elite" players. A 4 year starter is already considered "success", even in the first round.

 

The league average (e.g. realistic) expectation towards a draft is to find 3-4 players who will contribute. Possibly 1-2 starters - one of them worthy of a second contract -, and 2-3 rotational / backup players for a few years. That's the average success rate of an NFL draft. Anything better than that is above average, and considered a good draft.

 

Ballard found 8 starters in 2 drafts, which can only increase if any/some of his 2019 draftees become starters. That's already waaay better than average. The fact, that he found 2 true elite players amongst them is only the icing on the cake. 

 

(Regarding Leonard, c'mon... you are talking about a 2 times all pro in his first 2 years. All pro is not a fan voting, it DOES mean something. Actually, a lot.)

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all you people who keep bashing Ballard and his ineffective roster building. Did any of you watch the Chiefs-Texan game today? I don't know if the Texans were missing 15-20 starters or not, but if that was their regulars I sure am glad I'm a Colt fan. That Texan team is so devoid of talent at all positions except receiver and qb I don't know how they are even competitive. We beat them 2 out of three times last season and split with them this past season(and we didn't have a qb this year). Just wow! There's going to have to be a 3-5 year rebuilding job there in Houston. Go Colts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2020 at 9:04 AM, ThorstenDenmark said:

Quenton Nelson, Darius Leonard, Malik Hooker, Marlon Mack that's his best hits over the last three drafts, then there have been a lot of picks that are questionable and busts.

 

But overall, he's done a great job.

 

Not his fault Luck bailed on us.

 

The only pick of his I would call a bust would be Tyquan Lewis.  Quincy Wilson may fall into that category as well (he did look much improved in 2018 and then played worse last year).  

 

Otherwise, the vast majority of the players who haven't produced from Ballard's drafts are later round picks (e.g.,  Gerri Green, EJ Speed) or dealt with injuries (e.g., Campbell, Fountain, Cain, Patterson, etc.).  We have had several guys who didn't work out in Indy for whatever reason, but are doing pretty well else where (e.g., Zach Banner, Terrell Basham, Nate Hairston).  I wouldn't really call any of them busts at this point and am optimistic about Campbell and Fountain helping this team out.

 

On 1/8/2020 at 1:26 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

EVERYONE has missed a few targets.

 

E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E!!      

 

The only people who think scouting is easy are fans who sit at home and watch videos and then province who is good and who is not.

 

Otherwise,  those who do this for a living know how hard it is.

 

 

One thing I particularly like about Ballard is that he scouts for talent but also places an almost equal (potentially greater) amount on player's characters.  We've not had any locker room cancers or guys on this team since he's been here that have had major off-field incidents.

 

Scouting for talent alone is hard enough, but having a track record over 3 years with no major personality problems in the locker room or the community is fairly impressive (at least IMO).  

 

On 1/8/2020 at 1:36 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

Feel free to name them.

 

By the way,  good drafs are measured by if you can get three starters out of the draft,  it's a good draft.

 

17                             18                         19

----                            -----                       ----

Hooker                  Nelson                Rock

Mack                     Leonard              Ben

Walker                  Smith                   Parris

Stewart                 Turay                   Okereke

Wilson                  Hines                   Willis

                               Wilkens               Tell

                               Adams                 Speed

                               Franklin

 

That's a fair amount of talented starters and contributors for the misses you're about to tell me about.     But go ahead....

 

 

Even more impressive is everyone of Ballard's picks over 3 years is still in the NFL.  Hairston became a starter with the NYJ, Basham saw a lot of playing time with NYJ, Banner is on Pittsburgh's active roster.  Cain got picked up by Pittsburgh off our practice squad.  Barton is on the KC Chiefs active roster.  

 

I don't know the total stats, but I'd venture to guess if Ballard isn't the only GM in the league to have every draft pick in the past 3 drafts on an NFL roster, there are very few other GMs with that resume.

 

On 1/8/2020 at 8:58 PM, Peterk2011 said:

 

 

Of course, Belichick will fix his mistakes in the long term. At least I assume he will (who knows). But anyway, it's obvious how good of job Ballard has done so far in Indy. Not perfect of course, but good. Very-very good.

 

 

I don't know here.  I think the Pats' dynasty is rapidly coming to a close.  I'm not sure there is a 'long term' on Belichick (could be wrong), but I kind of foresee him retiring in less than 5 years.

 

On 1/9/2020 at 3:07 AM, Pacergeek said:

Just because Rock was a PFF all pro, can we please stop pretending he had a good Rookie season. Spoiler Alert: he didn't.

 

I'd also like to address Banagu and his performance. He should also get some heat. For a second round pick, he did next to nothing. I hope they turn it around, but Ballard's 2019 second round picks were bad their Rookie years.

 

I think it was pretty clear from Ballard and Reich after the draft that Banogu was a project pick and it'd be 2-3 years before we could expect much from him.  Similar to Turay in 2018.  Poor guy got that nasty injury, but he really improved from year 1 to 2.

 

Many say CB is the hardest position to play in the NFL as a rookie.  Rock got thrown into the fire early and most of his struggles were with PI and holding penalties.  He certainly improved as the year went on and I think we'll see continued improvement as the defense gets better (we had very little pass rush last year, which makes it much harder on DBs) and as he gets more experience.

 

On 1/9/2020 at 8:04 AM, Chloe6124 said:

I guess when your picking as low in the first you kind of have to go with more of a developmental DE. Turay looked like he turned the corner in year two. Hopefully Ben will too. I am sure he will work with Mathis a lot this off season. His PFF stats were pretty good in pressure rate. Imagine if Ben and Turay both end up very good and get second contracts. That will cost a ton. 

 

We need more guys who are ready to make a difference right away no matter where they are picked. I am really surprised Willis dropped to the 4th rd. He was clearly ready to play right away. 

 

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/khari-willis?id=32195749-4c60-5004-6791-4fe00adf2db2  

 

Willis was a projected 5th round pick.  His biggest strength coming out of college was that he was a good team leader, a smart guy, and a very good person.  Many thought he was too slow and tight to be more than a STer in the NFL.  Ballard saw something different, and I'm glad he did.  I expect Geathers' days in Indy are numbered with the way Willis played as a rookie.  I think we have a long term starter with him (if healthy).

 

On 1/10/2020 at 9:38 AM, Peterk2011 said:

 

No, not all GMs inherit a mess. Brett Veach inherited a championship caliber team when John Dorsey got fired. Whoever will take the Texans GM job soon, won't inherit a mess. He will have to solve some puzzles, but that Texans team is a playoff team even with an average HC. These two are not exceptions, there are other GM's, who inherited quite decent situations. Ballard didn't. The Colts were a mess.

 

Btw, he inherited a very talented, INJURED QB, who's future was questionable. 

  

 

It was offered by Irsay. He was the one who declared the team as a mess. And he was the one, who defined a 4 years timeframe to get back to contendership level. He expressed this multiple times. It doesn't mean he didn't expect _some_ results on the way, but the goal was (and still is) to build a contender by 2021.

 

 

Should I say your are wrong again Doug? Nelson had a fantastic rookie year, but his second year was by far better. He was the most dominant, almost unanimous pick in the entire all pro voting. It's practically a consensus by now, that regarding guards, there is Nelson, and there are the rest. I'm not saying that, most experst say that.

 

And Smith had a better season too, than his rookie season was. According to pff, and most analysts too.

 

It was only Leonard, who had a bit of a stepback, but he still become a 2nd team all pro, and most people say, that he had so fantastic second part of the season, that if he wasn't injured in the first half, he'd be an easy first team all pro again.

 

So no, no regression. (And no regression from Mack, Walker, Hines neither. Regarding Turay, before the injury, he had the best pass rushing grade amongs all rushers in the NFL. Better than T.J. Watt, Shaquil Barrett, or the Bosas. It's disappoinging / unfortunate that he got injured - again -, but he DID improve a lot from year 1 to year 2.)

 

The only guy I saw play worse this year than last was Q. Wilson.  I don't think T. Lewis got any better.

 

Leonard, IMO, became a better football player.  His numbers were down from year one to some extent (he had 3 more INTs in year 2, in 2 less games).  I think some of that can be attributed to missing 2 more games, some of it can be due to teams really focusing on him, and some can be attributed to (IMO) a decline in the DL performance.    However, I thought I saw a better football player who relied less on pure athleticism and started to really pick up things with an increased football IQ (Eberflus agrees).  

 

And yes, overall, Ballard took over a team that was not very good.  He did have Luck (who he doesn't have any more and who many were unsure if he'd play at all under Ballard due to other injuries).

 

He had very good players in TY, AC, and Kelly.  Otherwise, since Ballard's taken over 3 years ago, the only players left on the team are Haeg, Vinatieri, Geathers, and Doyle.


Our DL was not good (outside Henry Anderson).  Our OL had 2 pieces in place, and Ballard's turned it into top 3 in the league.  Our LB corps was awful (Walden was ok, then there were people like Antonio Morrison starting with old guys like Trent Cole and Mathis who retired after Grigson left).  Our secondary was awful (Vontae had a major decline, then we had guys like TJ Green, an old Mike Adams, past his prime Darius Butler, Rashan Melvin and Mathias Farley -- the rest of the guys in the secondary aside from Milton I didn't even remember being Colts).  

 

Should also be pointed out that Ballard came into a very unique position.  Things got so bad under Grigs that Irsay decided he felt the need to give Pagano a second chance with a new GM.   Ballard didn't even have an option to bring in his own coach when he came to Indy, he got stuck with Pags.

 

Ballard's situation was really not very good when he got here.  Then with Luck retiring, with the McDaniels thing, etc. it's not like he's had a very easy road since he's been here.  However, he seems to stay positive and level-headed and has this team in a much better place than Grigs (outside of not having Luck) left it for him.

 

We saw this year that we need to add some depth at WR and TE.  We saw he need to improve our DL play (some of this may be fixed with Banugo improving and Turay coming back healthy).  We saw we took a major blow from Andrew Luck's retirement.  We also saw Vinatieri struggle majorly.  All in all, considering how bad our team was when Ballard got it, we're not really too far off from getting back to AFC South champs.  

 

If you ask me, that's pretty impressive considering that in just 3 years at this job the initial 53 Ballard was handed only has 7 left and 46 new guys.  He's put us in a space to have the salary cap to resign some of our young guys who will demand new contracts in the next couple years (Big Q, Kelly, Smith, Leonard, etc. are all going to be asking for premium contracts at their positions when they're up for FA) and in a space where we can play in FA if needed.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...