Look at what San Francisco has done in 3 years

[chad72]

35 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Why getting personal, did I ruin some ongoing narrative you have convinced yourself of?    I'm talking about the three year timeline, which is the topic of the thread, and I included Ballard's predecessor's choice.

 

Check the bolded above, the players you raised as being difference makers.  Did Lynch or his predecessor use significant capital to acquire a LG, FS, or C?  Even 4 or 5 years ago.  Apparently, even the guy who got fired at SF didn't make that mistake.

 

 

They did, they drafted Eric Reid, I just told you, without getting technical that it was in 2014, they had a real bad need at that position and for their defensive scheme then, they drafted him. Plus, first round centers have had a good success rate in NFL history - 

 

Travis Frederick, #31 overall, 2013 (Cowboys)

Nick Mangold, #29 overall, 2006 (Jets)

Alex Mack, #21 overall, 2009 (Browns)

Ryan Kelly, #18 overall, 2016 (Colts)

Maurkice Pouncey, #18 overall, 2010 (Steelers)

Eric Wood, #28 overall, 2009 (Bills)

Damien Woody, #17 overall, 1999 (Patriots)

 

drafted by different teams have all contributed very well to the success of their team. 

 

The free agency is where you need to augment the draft capital you have spent on. I also mentioned that. A few positions by themselves do not make the difference, you need talent at all positions that makes a good team, there is only so much draft capital you have, first rounders or later. The places where they did not invest draft capital in, SF made moves via free agency, that was my point. They put them over the hump not because of the positions they played but because they had to supplement the existing talent they had with those FA moves.

 

Ballard, right now, has enough leash to correct the course, and I am hoping this off season, will make enough FA moves to go with our draft capital we invest in. He truly has had his own scouts and schemes for his new DC only in place for 2 years, so Irsay is right in showing the patience, IMO. 

[DougDew]

17 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

No. He drafted them because they were the best players available in his opinion.   

 

Also,  Luck ran just as much as Mahomes does. 

LOL.  Reads more like a narrative than actual history.

 

He drafted Smith because...and I quote..."he was the last available starting quality G on the board".

 

Nothing about BPA.  And he said that about Smith, right after he just drafted a starting quality G at 6.......so he obviously felt that even though having AC and Kelly, he thought that two Gs were a high need.

 

And he didn't want to trade back past 8 because he wanted and I quote "to stay in a position to get one of the elite players in the draft".  He never said that Nelson was BPA, or at least that it wasn't the reason he was drafted.

 

All because he wanted to protect his pocket passer, and not force him to scramble and risk potential injury.

[MTC]

49ers also robbed Jimmy G from New England. His market price (in terms of draft pick values) would be way higher than it once was. 

[Flash7]

9 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

It's entirely possible that if our DLine (Turay) stayed healthy, we might have won an extra game here or there

1. I usually find that it's better if I don't form an argument with "what ifs". For example, if Mahomes and the Chiefs offense were healthy against the Colts, it's possible we lose that game. Or if Watt stayed healthy, it's possible that the Texans win more games. Or if Tannehill started at the beginning of the season for the Titans, it's possible that they win more games.

 

2. Turay was often injured in college. He was injured his first year as a pro. He was injured this year. Safe bet not to rely on a guy who's body clearly is not cut out for this sport.

[Colts_Fan12]

we haven't sucked nearly as bad as the 49ers we dont pick top 5 or 10 every year like they did regularly.i mean of course they will eventually get better. our down years we still pick normally 15th or back lol

[Flash7]

2 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

Our down years we still pick normally 15th or back lol

Didn't we recently have the #3 pick, traded back to #6 and select Nelson? 

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

They did, they drafted Eric Reid, I just told you, without getting technical that it was in 2014, they had a real bad need at that position and for their defensive scheme then, they drafted him. Plus, first round centers have had a good success rate in NFL history - 

 

Travis Frederick, #31 overall, 2013 (Cowboys)

Nick Mangold, #29 overall, 2006 (Jets)

Alex Mack, #21 overall, 2009 (Browns)

Ryan Kelly, #18 overall, 2016 (Colts)

Maurkice Pouncey, #18 overall, 2010 (Steelers)

Eric Wood, #28 overall, 2009 (Bills)

Damien Woody, #17 overall, 1999 (Patriots)

 

drafted by different teams have all contributed very well to the success of their team. 

 

The free agency is where you need to augment the draft capital you have spent on. I also mentioned that. A few positions by themselves do not make the difference, you need talent at all positions that makes a good team. The places where they did not invest capital in, SF made moves via free agency, that was my point.

 

Ballard, right now, has enough leash to correct the course, and I am hoping this off season, will make enough FA moves to go with our draft capital we invest in. He truly has had his own scouts and schemes for his new DC only in place for 2 years, so Irsay is right in showing the patience, IMO. 

I would say that if a GM is serious about a 3 year window...

 

BTW, I think that is a fan-base goal....imaginary....and I don't think Ballard ever said that...

 

A G and a C and FS are not the position you would draft to build towards that window...IMO.  Those are the spots you acquire 4 to 5 years after you build a core.  Where you have a reasonably winning record and they can be drafted in the 20s. 

 

By the time we get the players we need at the impactful positions every team needs; our C, FS, and G will be entering FA.  At which point, we either have to sign them as we would street FA or franchise them.  No, I don't want to pay a G, a FS, and a C top 5 money.  Maybe 1.

[Thunderbolt]

This is a copy cat league, hope Ballard sees the success other teams are showing like the 49ers. Ballard and Reich approach this team more of a family oriented, loyalty, blood is thicker than water and so on. This is a business, you're being paid millions to win games and championships and you need to treat it as such, not enablers, if someone is not performing then either retrain or get rid of them. 

[Myles]

Comparing the team to a team who drafted in the top 10 of each round the last 4 years is pretty dumb.    

I would love to see what Ballard could do with 7th, 3rd, 9th and 2nd pick in the next 4 years.  

[chad72]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

No, I don't want to pay a G, a FS, and a C top 5 money.  Maybe 1.

 

You and I can probably agree that our FS is not getting top 5 money. 

 

But when your starting franchise QB has been the most hit QB (which was the case with Luck by the time 2016 came around), you double down on something that had not panned out with sub-par FA OL moves or later round OL picks that Grigson made. That is what happened when we got a C and 2 guards in 2016 and 2018 with our early round picks. It did show up in our hits and pressures going down considerably.

 

Unfortunately, the constant we thought would be a constant, Luck, retired. So, you are back to square one, that is the hand we have been dealt, have to move forward.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

11 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

1. I usually find that it's better if I don't form an argument with "what ifs". For example, if Mahomes and the Chiefs offense were healthy against the Colts, it's possible we lose that game. Or if Watt stayed healthy, it's possible that the Texans win more games. Or if Tannehill started at the beginning of the season for the Titans, it's possible that they win more games.

 

Fair enough.  I'm just saying we're not that far off.

 

Better QB play and better pass rush would put us in the mix.

 

That's a far cry from what Doug and a lot of other people are saying.

[indykmj]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

hooker was drafted to play in chucks scheme to be fair. the idea was that when facing man coverage teams will take shots to try and beat the CBs and that opens the door for hooker to run in and make a play

 

when facing a cover 2 you dont take many shots to the free safety area and he doesnt have the freedom to follow the play now

 

The switch to Tampa-2 was driven by Ballard. It was his plan from day one. And he knew that Pagano was a lame duck.

 

For whatever reason, despite his strength being a rangy, single high S, 

Hooker was drafted to play in this scheme.

 

 

[Myles]

3 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Fair enough.  I'm just saying we're not that far off.

 

Better QB play and better pass rush would put us in the mix.

 

That's a far cry from what Doug and a lot of other people are saying.

I agree.   This team is not that far off, but the positions of need are crucial ones.  QB, D-line, WR  and maybe LT

[Coffeedrinker]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

LOL.  Reads more like a narrative than actual history.

 

He drafted Smith because...and I quote..."he was the last available starting quality G on the board".

 

Nothing about BPA.  And he said that about Smith, right after he just drafted a starting quality G at 6.......so he obviously felt that even though having AC and Kelly, he thought that two Gs were a high need.

You really have no idea how BPA works do you?  The focus going into the draft, as stated by Ballard and Reich was to upgrade the starting oline and oline depth.  Considering that when teams develop a score for a player to set their board, part of that score is a factor or weight they give to different positions based on team focus.  So the last available starting guard when oline is a focus means he was the BPA for the Colts in that draft.

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

And he didn't want to trade back past 8 because he wanted and I quote "to stay in a position to get one of the elite players in the draft".  He never said that Nelson was BPA, or at least that it wasn't the reason he was drafted.

Yeah, one of the elite players in the draft would not have been BPA.  That makes a lot sense.

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

All because he wanted to protect his pocket passer, and not force him to scramble and risk potential injury.

This last statement is asinine, no matter how good an oline is the QB is going to have to scramble at times.  It was all because he wanted to protect the QB, not protect a pocket passer, not to stop the QB from scrambling... to protect the QB, that is all.

[The Fish]

It's not apples to apples. I think the Eagles run from a few years ago might be a better analogy for where the Colts currently are at and what Ballard could do to kick start the program. But there's a part of that story that you can't just replicate. 

[chad72]

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

It's not apples to apples. I think the Eagles run from a few years ago might be a better analogy for where the Colts currently are at and what Ballard could do to kick start the program. But there's a part of that story that you can't just replicate. 

 

Maybe we assemble FA talent, are leading our division, and then Chad Kelly takes over for an injured Brissett, and leads us to the SB like Nick Foles because not enough teams have film on him, LOL. 

 

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

You and I can probably agree that our FS is not getting top 5 money. 

 

But when your starting QB has been the most hit QB (which was the case with Luck by the time 2016 came around), you double down on something that had not panned out with sub-par FA OL moves or later round OL picks that Grigson made. That is what happened when we got a C and 2 guards in 2016 and 2018 with our early round picks. It did show up in our hits and pressures going down.

 

Unfortunately, the constant we thought would be a constant, Luck, retired. So, you are back to square one, that is the hand we have been dealt, have to move forward.

You don't need to defend Ballard to me. His job was to protect Luck immediately, not to go to the SB in three years.  But that's not the topic of the thread.

 

I'm not criticizing the picks of Smith and Nelson.  What I'm saying is in the context of the thread, a three year window, they don't contribute as much as a #1 CB, a EDGE, a LT, A Derrick Henry, a Deebo etc would.  Its about the window.

 

The thread is about what we did in the past three years compared to what SF has done.  I see Lynch emphasizing positional value more than the Colts have, where our first goal was to protect a QB who is no longer here.    

[chad72]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You don't need to defend Ballard to me. His job was to protect Luck immediately, not to go to the SB in three years.  But that's not the topic of the thread.

 

I'm not criticizing the picks of Smith and Nelson.  What I'm saying is in the context of the thread, a three year window, they don't contribute as much as a #1 CB, a EDGE, a LT, A Derrick Henry, a Deebo etc would.  Its about the window.

 

The thread is about what we did in the past three years compared to what SF has done.  I see Lynch emphasizing positional value more than the Colts have, where our first goal was to protect a QB who is no longer here.    

 

They would have, IF we had gotten a #1 CB, EDGE and WR in free agency like the Broncos did with Peyton at the helm - Talib, Ware and Sanders are your clear cut examples. Again, you need that marquee QB to build around. In that situation, Elway was clearly thinking 3 year window. If it is truly a 3 year window, the sense of urgency is shown more with free agency augmentation of existing talent, IMO.

 

But the 3 year window is definitely more imaginary in the fan's mind for a team devoid of talent if you only relied on the draft, which has played itself out in our record so far. If we had Luck healthy, this team probably wins the division, IMO, and in a weaker AFC, IMO, could have been in the divisional round.  That is, without FA moves. That is why I have been harping on FA as a must have to augment draft pick development to go further in the playoffs. We could have still spent our draft capital on what we did and still had similar results as the 49ers, but probably not the exact same since not enough was invested in our DL from years past that I hope Ballard changes moving forward.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

You really have no idea how BPA works do you?  The focus going into the draft, as stated by Ballard and Reich was to upgrade the starting oline and oline depth.  Considering that when teams develop a score for a player to set their board, part of that score is a factor or weight they give to different positions based on team focus.  So the last available starting guard when oline is a focus means he was the BPA for the Colts in that draft.

Yeah, one of the elite players in the draft would not have been BPA.  That makes a lot sense.

This last statement is asinine, no matter how good an oline is the QB is going to have to scramble at times.  It was all because he wanted to protect the QB, not protect a pocket passer, not to stop the QB from scrambling... to protect the QB, that is all.

Stop it.  You sound like you're just being argumentative.  

 

DUH.  In past year's a QB would not be BPA.  This year it is, but LG isn't.

 

Yes, the goal was to find OL players.  That's what I said.  That's why they drafted Nelson, and why they drafted Smith after they drafted Nelson.  They ignored positional value by placing the protection of Luck as the highest priority of the 2018 draft.  Lynch never had that as a priority.

 

The bolded must be over your head.  It involves apportioning limited resources.  If a QBs legs can protect himself better than another QBs legs can protect himself, then you have to spend incrementally less on olinemen and free's up incrementally more on other positions that matter. 

 

Ballard didn't want Luck to have to use his legs to protect himself, as he did with the previous olines.  Its elementary, so stop pretending its wrong..  

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

They would have, IF we had gotten a #1 CB, EDGE and WR in free agency like the Broncos did with Peyton at the helm - Talib, Ware and Sanders are your clear cut examples. Again, you need that marquee QB to build around. In that situation, Elway was clearly thinking 3 year window. If it is truly a 3 year window, the sense of urgency is shown more with free agency augmentation of existing talent, IMO.

 

But the 3 year window is definitely more imaginary in the fan's mind for a team devoid of talent if you only relied on the draft, which has played itself out in our record so far. If we had Luck healthy, this team probably wins the division, IMO, and in a weaker AFC, IMO, could have been in the divisional round.  That is, without FA moves. That is why I have been harping on FA as a must have to augment draft pick development to go further in the playoffs. We could have still spent our draft capital on what we did and still had similar results as the 49ers, but probably not the exact same since not enough was invested in our DL from years past that I hope Ballard changes moving forward.

   

 

I thought this three year timeline thing was always out of sync with the method Ballard said he wanted to pursue. So I never bought into the three year thing.  If all you're going to do is build through the draft, how long into his 30s is your franchise QB going to be before he wins his first SB?  When you have Luck, the opportunity is always now, so spend to the ceiling if you're serious about winning it soon, IMO.  

[Coffeedrinker]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Stop it.  You sound like you're just being argumentative.  

 

DUH.  In past year's a QB would not be BPA.  This year it is, but LG isn't.

 

Yes, the goal was to find OL players.  That's what I said.  That's why they drafted Nelson, and why they drafted Smith after they drafted Nelson.  They ignored positional value by placing the protection of Luck as the highest priority of the 2018 draft.  Lynch never had that as a priority.

Ahh, once again changing your point.  The parts I quoted was you saying the Colts did not draft Nelson and Smith because they were the BPA available.  But BPA factors in positional need.  

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

The bolded must be over your head.  It involves apportioning limited resources.  If a QBs legs can protect himself better than another QBs legs can protect himself, then you have to spend incrementally less on olinemen and free's up incrementally more on other positions that matter. 

Trust me, nothing you say is over my head.  You claimed they draft onlineman to protect a pocket passer so he didn't have to scramble and get hurt.  That is the asinine part because QBs will always have situations where they have to scramble.  They did not draft olineman so Luck would not have to scramble.  

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

Ballard didn't want Luck to have to use his legs to protect himself, as he did with the previous olines.  Its elementary, so stop pretending its wrong..  

The only thing wrong is your interpretation of why Nelson and Smith were drafted.

[Colts_Fan12]

1 hour ago, Flash7 said:

Didn't we recently have the #3 pick, traded back to #6 and select Nelson? 

yeah 1 year lol nothing in comparison to being terrible for nearly 10 years 

[Flash7]

9 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

yeah 1 year lol nothing in comparison to being terrible for nearly 10 years 

Niners were 11-5 in 2012. They were in the SuperBowl in 2013, and their record in 2014 was 8-8. They were not nearly as bad over the last 10 years as you may think.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Ahh, once again changing your point.  The parts I quoted was you saying the Colts did not draft Nelson and Smith because they were the BPA available.  But BPA factors in positional need.  

Trust me, nothing you say is over my head.  You claimed they draft onlineman to protect a pocket passer so he didn't have to scramble and get hurt.  That is the asinine part because QBs will always have situations where they have to scramble.  They did not draft olineman so Luck would not have to scramble.  

The only thing wrong is your interpretation of why Nelson and Smith were drafted.

 

Goodness.  All QBs scramble at times, but Luck was viewed as a pocket passer that needed a clean pocket....like most NFL QBs.  The best way to protect the QB is to keep him in the pocket.   That is the reason Ballard drafted  "the last starting caliber G on the board"  at 37 even after drafting the best starting caliber G on the board at pick 6. 

 

Traditional positional value was put aside to solve a more important need at the time.

 

Throwing the ball away is the option used by pocket passers to avoid injury. Scrambling exposes them to injury, but it extends the play, giving them an opportunity to make something out of nothing when the pocket collapses in 2 seconds.  Ballard wanted a 5 second pocket even though he had a very athletic QB who could scramble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[shasta519]

There could be some parallels between SF and IND...and perhaps some lessons. (Look at who started that following season for SF).

 

SF needed a franchise QB back in 2017. But even though SF ultimately had the #3 pick...they passed on drafting a QB like Mahomes or Watson. Instead, they grabbed a developmental QB prospect in the 3rd round. They then used that pick on a "blue chip" DL player. 

 

Fortunately...they were able to trade for Jimmy G that following season. Maybe they knew they would eventually land Jimmy G...or could get Cousins the following year in FA...but it was risky to pass on drafting a QB.

 

The Colts need a franchise QB. They don't have the #3 pick...but they are in a position to realistically to get one of the top 3-4 guys. And this is where the Colts are faced with a similar choice. Do they grab their guy at #13 (or perhaps move up a few spots)...or do they pass on drafting a QB early like SF did...and grab a developmental QB in rounds 2-3...while working toward a more proven option...perhaps a Derek Carr trade. 

 

IMO...they are drafting somebody...either as the long-term franchise QB, the developmental backup for the foreseeable future (even if they do manage to get a proven upgrade prior to the draft) OR as a hedge for a future move.

 

It worked out for SF in the end...but Beathard got beat out by an UDFA and Thomas has been a disappointment. 

 

Going to be very interesting to see how Ballard plays this. I know what I would do...but that's about it.

 

 

[crazycolt1]

5 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

But Reich and Ballard called Brissett a top 20 QB. According to you they know more than the fanbase. So was that just a lie (we all know the answer)? You can't blindly trust the FO, then make excuses when something goes wrong. We called this from the start, and apparently he's not smarter than 31 other GM's (especially the Texans and Titans) and that's all that matters.

Are you serious? Just stop with this nonsense 

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

There could be some parallels between SF and IND...and perhaps some lessons. (Look at who started that following season for SF).

 

SF needed a franchise QB back in 2017. But even though SF ultimately had the #3 pick...they passed on drafting a QB like Mahomes or Watson. Instead, they grabbed a developmental QB prospect in the 3rd round. They then used that pick on a "blue chip" DL player. 

 

Fortunately...they were able to trade for Jimmy G that following season. Maybe they knew they would eventually land Jimmy G...or could get Cousins the following year in FA...but it was risky to pass on drafting a QB.

 

The Colts need a franchise QB. They don't have the #3 pick...but they are in a position to realistically to get one of the top 3-4 guys. And this is where the Colts are faced with a similar choice. Do they grab their guy at #13 (or perhaps move up a few spots)...or do they pass on drafting a QB early like SF did...and grab a developmental QB in rounds 2-3...while working toward a more proven option...perhaps a Derek Carr trade. 

 

IMO...they are drafting somebody...either as the long-term franchise QB, the developmental backup for the foreseeable future (even if they do manage to get a proven upgrade prior to the draft) OR as a hedge for a future move.

 

It worked out for SF in the end...but Beathard got beat out by an UDFA and Thomas has been a disappointment. 

 

Going to be very interesting to see how Ballard plays this. I know what I would do...but that's about it.

 

 

Great points.  But here's the issue.  Its Garrapalo that's QBing them to the SB, not the guy they took to develop in round 3.  Cousins is also in the same mold as JG.  They were both taken in rounds later than 1 who happened to work out....and weren't apparently good enough for their old teams to still want them (I know NE had Brady).  

 

They are both probably second tier guys.  And the developmental QB we take in round 3 will probably be just like them.

 

So, the question is, do you want a franchise QB to build around, or a full roster led by a QB that isn't quite franchise quality.  IMO, after winning one SB in 20 years with PM and AL and a marginal defense, I definitely do not want to spend the capital on a franchise QB.  Having said that, taking a QB with a mid first round pick like #13 isn't really a lot of capital compared to PM and AL, or a trade up for a Mahomes or a Darnold/Allen.

[crazycolt1]

This horse dung of using the 49ers as comparison is exactly that, horse dung.

First it was the Patriots and now it's the 49ers. 

Calling Ballard no better than 31 other GMs in the league is not only untrue, it's childish and ignorant. 

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

This horse dung of using the 49ers as comparison is exactly that, horse dung.

First it was the Patriots and now it's the 49ers. 

Calling Ballard no better than 31 other GMs in the league is not only untrue, it's childish and ignorant. 

I would say that even Ballard takes a look at what the SB teams did in the past few years compared to what he has done.  Its common sense to make that comparison.

[Imgrandojji]

14 hours ago, hambone35 said:

We are going into 3rd year with Reich, and Ballard together, SF has done it they wasn’t afraid to get free agents etc... So where do you believe we will be? No reason we should not be there!

We didn't suck bad enough to get where they are in the way they did it.  We've managed to not suck because Ballard has a knack for finding value in the mid levels of the talent pool.  He's done a really good job of patching that roster together and instead of suck-for-Bosa, we were competing for the playoffs last year and had a fighting chance this year, even without our quitterback, before the wheels fell off.

 

Bottom line, no, we won't do a 3 year turnaround the way the 49ers did because that involved a level of terrible play that nobody wants to see in Indy.  People are upset about 7-9, imagine 3-13.

 

That said, I trust Ballard to make adjustments and slow gradual improvements to the roster over the years. 

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

I would say that even Ballard takes a look at what the SB teams did in the past few years compared to what he has done.  Its common sense to make that comparison.

That has zero to do with the butt hurt fans in this forum who whine and cry about what other teams do without understanding why things happen right here on our own team. 

Then point a finger for someone to blame. It don't matter the how and why of things. 

 

[Imgrandojji]

10 hours ago, Freenyfan102 said:

Ballard is a Polian clone and never going to spend the money on players we actually need.

I was on this bandwagon right at the deadline because we were in a playoff position and didn't make a move to upgrade the team.  As I watched the wheels fall off though I had to concede that not making a move was the correct decision.  We had too many holes in too many places to think a deadline move would have saved the team.

[Myles]

9 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

We didn't suck bad enough to get where they are in the way they did it.  We've managed to not suck because Ballard has a knack for finding value in the mid levels of the talent pool.  He's done a really good job of patching that roster together and instead of suck-for-Bosa, we were competing for the playoffs last year and had a fighting chance this year, even without our quitterback, before the wheels fell off.

 

Bottom line, no, we won't do a 3 year turnaround the way the 49ers did because that involved a level of terrible play that nobody wants to see in Indy.  People are upset about 7-9, imagine 3-13.

 

That said, I trust Ballard to make adjustments and slow gradual improvements to the roster over the years. 

I agree.  

On the bolded part:

We did more than compete for the playoffs, we made it and won a playoff game.  

[DougDew]

39 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

That has zero to do with the butt hurt fans in this forum who whine and cry about what other teams do without understanding why things happen right here on our own team. 

Then point a finger for someone to blame. It don't matter the how and why of things. 

 

Maybe there are a few.  I think its just a matter of going back an revisiting the situations prior to making decisions to see what other teams saw relative to what we saw.  I think Ballard does the same thing.

 

I think the blame game has gone on for way too many years.  Its easy and lazy, that's all.

 

 

[crazycolt1]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

I think the blame game has gone on for way too many years.  Its easy and lazy, that's all.

 

 

I agree with this comment 100%.

Using hindsight just makes it easier too. 

[crazycolt1]

I think we all need to look forward, not about things in the past.

The what ifs and had someone did this does no one any good. 

I feel pretty good about the direction the Colts are going with Ballard. 

Will it be perfect? I doubt it but as a fan that's all I have to look forward to. 

We can all agree or disagree but one thing in common we all share is we are fans of the Colts or we wouldn't be here.

Go Colts!!

 

[CurBeatElite]

14 hours ago, hambone35 said:

We are going into 3rd year with Reich, and Ballard together, SF has done it they wasn’t afraid to get free agents etc... So where do you believe we will be? No reason we should not be there!

 

We're not that far off.  

 

11 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Don't you think losing a pro bowl QB before the start of the season might be part of the problem? 

 

 

 

Undoubtedly.  This reason alone makes it near impossible to compare IND to SF.  

 

6 hours ago, Myles said:

49rs drafted in the top 10 4 of the past 6 years.   That means they also drafted high in the other rounds.  Not sure that is a model you want to follow.  With Luck, we probably finish 11-5 or 12-4.   So we pretty much would nearly be there now.  

 

The Texans and Titans both had wins in the playoffs.  The Titans made it to the AFC Championship game.  With Luck, we owned the Titans.  With Jacoby, we split 1-1 regular season with the Titans.  If the Titans made that kinda run, I have to believe we would've had a nice shot at the AFC Championship game (or SB) with a healthy Luck (and fully healthy roster).

 

Still not saying Jacoby is our long-term solution... but TEN got there with a good running game and solid D.  If we improve our DL and add another piece to our secondary (or maybe Rock, Tell and others improve with a better DL), we do have a top 5 running team.  Something will eventually need to be done to upgrade Jacoby (or he'll have to improve), but there's no reason (IMO) that we can't win the AFC South and advance in the playoffs with a few improvements outside of QB next year.  Tannehill isn't exactly a name many NFL fans associate with 'franchise QB', the Titans got to the AFC Championship by running the ball, taking care of the ball and playing solid D.

 

2 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Slow to achieve?  We just went 7-9 without our franchise QB.  The 49ers went 4-12 without their franchise QB...

 

It's entirely possible that if our DLine (Turay) stayed healthy, we might have won an extra game here or there and made the playoffs, then won the AFCCG with our QB only having to throw the ball 8 times thanks to a strong running game (#5) and defense.  We already beat KC once this year (in KC), we could have done it again.  

 

 

I think you're using this thread to add to your ongoing narrative you've convinced yourself of about Ballards' 1st-round picks.  

 

For real, if Vinny didn't cost us 2-3 games (maybe more like 4-5 games) and McClaughin 1 game (missed a game tying FG), we would've had a nice shot at winning AFC South this past year.  Not like Tannehill is an all-pro QB, the Titans moved on by running the ball and being solid on D.  I think we need to add a few pieces on D, but we can certainly run the ball and I think on any given Sunday we can play with most teams in the league.  If the Titans made that run, no reason we couldn't have.

 

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

I would say that if a GM is serious about a 3 year window...

 

BTW, I think that is a fan-base goal....imaginary....and I don't think Ballard ever said that...

 

A G and a C and FS are not the position you would draft to build towards that window...IMO.  Those are the spots you acquire 4 to 5 years after you build a core.  Where you have a reasonably winning record and they can be drafted in the 20s. 

 

By the time we get the players we need at the impactful positions every team needs; our C, FS, and G will be entering FA.  At which point, we either have to sign them as we would street FA or franchise them.  No, I don't want to pay a G, a FS, and a C top 5 money.  Maybe 1.

 

We had a top 5 NFL QB in Luck, so there was no need to address that issue in draft or FA prior to this past season (and Luck only gave a couple weeks notice, so it's not like it was an issue prior to last draft or FA period).  We have a pro-bowl WR in TY, and we brought in a WR through draft and FA last year (unfortunately, they both got hurt and TY missed over 1/3 of the season, a stretch where we went 1-5), so Ballard didn't ignore that position, he just got unfortunate.  We had a pro-bowl TE (Doyle) and Ballard brought in Ebron who had 1 pro-bowl year for us.

 

Hooker had 3 INTs in <7 full games as a rookie.  In year 2, he was barely targeted.  Last year, he was rarely targeted.  I still think Hooker has plenty of talent and is a good player.  We had no pass rush last year and were young (and sometimes hurt) in the secondary.  I have no reason to believe Hooker won't be a solid player for us with an improved pass rush and some more help in the backfield.

 

Nelson is a two-time all-pro in two years.  That's almost unheard of.  He's widely considered as the best OL in the NFL (if not THE best, one of the best).  Our run game was a joke before he got here.  We're now a top 5 running team (and last year we were able to be top 5 without a balanced attack, in part due to injuries at WR/TE and in part due to inconsistent play by Jacoby).  Q has improved the OL with his play and has changed the demeanor of the whole OL with his attitude.  Hard to argue with that pick.  Let's not forget Ballard also got Leonard in that draft who has been a 2x pro-bowler, 1x first team all-pro, 1x 2nd team all-pro.

 

Ballard did not draft a C (Kelly came in under Grigson), so not sure why the 'C' keeps coming up in your posts.  

 

Ballard acquired a team that was very lackluster outside of Luck at QB, AC at LT, Kelly at C, TY at WR, Viniatieri at K, and maybe a couple other spots.  He went ahead and added very good football players in areas where we needed them.

 

I see nothing wrong with Ballard's approach so far, considering the team he inherited.  He's made us a better team, despite a lot of adversity and bad luck.

 

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

You don't need to defend Ballard to me. His job was to protect Luck immediately, not to go to the SB in three years.  But that's not the topic of the thread.

 

I'm not criticizing the picks of Smith and Nelson.  What I'm saying is in the context of the thread, a three year window, they don't contribute as much as a #1 CB, a EDGE, a LT, A Derrick Henry, a Deebo etc would.  Its about the window.

 

The thread is about what we did in the past three years compared to what SF has done.  I see Lynch emphasizing positional value more than the Colts have, where our first goal was to protect a QB who is no longer here.    

 

First off, our goals were to protect Luck and to establish a running game. We were 5th in the league in rushing last year after being a joke as a running team for about a decade prior to that (really since Edge left).  Ballard made it clear from day 1 that this team would be able to run the ball... we can do that now.

 

Second off, we already had a LT (AC) prior to Ballard.  No reason he should've invested in another one to date (he will have to if AC retires).  He drafted Campbell and signed Funchess last year (they both got hurt -- would they have been as good as Deebo, who knows, but it's not like it went ignored).  We have Marlon Mack who, if healthy, should be a 1,200-1,500 yard runner in 16 games.  There is only one Derrick Henry in the league (IMO, nobody else is close to him as far as being that big, strong and fast -- some other RBs like Saquaon may be as good of RBs, but none are quite like DH), so that's a silly statement to make -- we've got a guy who can rush for >1,200 yards and we were top 5 in the league in rushing.  

 

Ballard drafted Turay who by all means was set to have around double digit sacks last year, and he signed Houston who had double digit sacks.  We need to stay healthy on the DL and we need some interior pressure.  Our DL has been solid against the run.  Balalrd's only a piece or two away from that being a very good unit.

 

Overall, he's had very good drafts.  We have some young guys on this team that have shown a lot of promise and should improve over the next few years.  I'm really not sure what you're complaining about.

[WarGhost21]

Ok, so here we go. The Colts defense has drastically improved over the past 3 seasons under Ballard. There is no denying that. It went from worst in the league to a top 10 defense, and has its young cornerstone leader in Darius Leonard.

 

You cannot expect the offense to be the same. 

 

With Luck’s retirement, the offensive rebuild is all the way back to square one. Sure, some players will translate over to the new QB, but unless we find Luck 2.0, this scheme won’t be fit for our next signal caller. Thus, I am judging the defense next year for sure, but on offense I will give them another season of work. Losing a top 3 QB won’t go over lightly, so we must be patient and give it a couple years. We’ve been spoiled with Luck right after Manning, it’s time to wake up and realize that the offense needs a reboot and it won’t be all fixed next season. Put your faith in the franchise and Ballard and Reich will get things done!

[Coffeedrinker]

17 minutes ago, WarGhost21 said:

Ok, so here we go. The Colts defense has drastically improved over the past 3 seasons under Ballard. There is no denying that. It went from worst in the league to a top 10 defense, and has its young cornerstone leader in Darius Leonard.

 

You cannot expect the offense to be the same. 

 

With Luck’s retirement, the offensive rebuild is all the way back to square one. Sure, some players will translate over to the new QB, but unless we find Luck 2.0, this scheme won’t be fit for our next signal caller. Thus, I am judging the defense next year for sure, but on offense I will give them another season of work. Losing a top 3 QB won’t go over lightly, so we must be patient and give it a couple years. We’ve been spoiled with Luck right after Manning, it’s time to wake up and realize that the offense needs a reboot and it won’t be all fixed next season. Put your faith in the franchise and Ballard and Reich will get things done!

I agree and disagree with this but only because I think that is one thing that made luck so valuable and proof that he was a top QB... he was not a QB that needed a certain system to succeed.  He did well in Arians 25 step drop and chuck it downfield system, he did well in Pep's system and he did well in Reich system.  The only offensive starter that I think doesn't fit reich's system is maybe Glowinski but even though he was the weak link in the line this year he still played well enough that if he's the starting RG in 2020 the Colts will be ok.  But the receivers, TEs, RBs and line are for Reich's system.  The down side is I think the Colts will have to get a system QB, because I think there is only one QB in this draft that can play in any system.

[Nickster]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

 

Goodness.  All QBs scramble at times, but Luck was viewed as a pocket passer that needed a clean pocket....like most NFL QBs.  The best way to protect the QB is to keep him in the pocket.   That is the reason Ballard drafted  "the last starting caliber G on the board"  at 37 even after drafting the best starting caliber G on the board at pick 6. 

 

Traditional positional value was put aside to solve a more important need at the time.

 

Throwing the ball away is the option used by pocket passers to avoid injury. Scrambling exposes them to injury, but it extends the play, giving them an opportunity to make something out of nothing when the pocket collapses in 2 seconds.  Ballard wanted a 5 second pocket even though he had a very athletic QB who could scramble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nelson was a no brainer in my opinion.  Even though his position has less value, he is so good that it makes up quite a bit of ground.  Smith pick has been fantastic.  He's playing at a high level at a higher valued position.

 

It sucks that the org was in a position to have to spend so much draft capital on interior linemen, but that was where they were weakest by far.  Luck used to get pummeled right up the middle.  It is amazing how good he played when he was getting all that pressure in his face.  It is hard to scramble well when the pressure comes directly from between the tackles.

 

I think everyone is underestimating some of the effectiveness of the players on this team because of the terrible QB play and the collapse of a young defense during the last month.

 

Prior to the last month the D was very good.

 

The rushing offense is fantastic on this one dimensional team.

 

Doug the elephant in the room is that we went from a great QB to a crap one.  It is impossible to discuss everything else without getting into Jacoby. 

 

With Luck, we could be playing in 2 weeks IMO.  I am not saying that for sure, but I think it would be possible for the team to show up better than KC.  We might have even had homefield advantage.  Their run D is subpar and probably we could have exploited that.  I think it would have been probable that the Colts would have improved more than KC improved since the playoff game a year ago.  

 

I think it would be tough, but I also think that beating KC is a daunting task for anyone.

 

I think anyone counting out Rock is short sighted.  He played relatively well with the exception of that one game.  I think he's a good one.  

 

I agree we need a DT, but who doesn't?  SF and a couple other teams maybe.

 

Again, I think an above average guy, a top 3rd QB would have this team right up there.  I think we would need to fill a couple of other needs to be on KC, SF, maybe NO level.