Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Is Ballard just Meh?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No offense, but I feel more like the fan base is just....meh.    Ballard freaking rules. If I ever get to meet Jim Irsay, I'm high fiving him on this hire. 

So the QB spot is still a mess and CB appears to have either poorly judged JB or panicked into a high signing price. Now he signed to Hoyer to a ridiculous signing last year to mentor and help JB in t

He inherited a bad roster that had the franchise qb so beat to hell, he retired 10 years early. I don’t care if he rushed the qb spot or not, he was dealt a % hand and set back with Andrew on that. He

Ballard has done a great job so far. Yes he’s made some deals and picks that haven’t worked out, but he hits more than the majority of GMs. The roster and cap was in shambles when he took over, minus a handful of guys. If Luck doesn’t retire all of a sudden this team is competing for a ring I believe. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, USAFHoosier said:

Ballard has done a great job so far. Yes he’s made some deals and picks that haven’t worked out, but he hits more than the majority of GMs. The roster and cap was in shambles when he took over, minus a handful of guys. If Luck doesn’t retire all of a sudden this team is competing for a ring I believe. 

No it wasn't.  The roster was in as good of shape as any GM inherits, probably better, as was the cap. 

 

In fact, the cap was in great shape.  Ballard simply chose not to use it, rightly or wrongly.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, DougDew said:

I'm not going to do the usual excuse making by judging Ballard's performance by always comparing it to Grigson.  Ballard can stand on his own.

 

The oline was not as bad, nor the cause, of as much of the problems as the pancake lovers want to pretend.  Funny, but Luck didn't seem to have as many setbacks and problems moving the ball when Reggie was healthy...IOW, a decent #2.  Arguably in his early years, Luck had a worse Oline when AC was the only non mid level vet on it and he didn't have as many issues.  That's because we had two decent TEs, Ahmad Bradshaw, TY and Reggie, not to mention Donnie Avery for a year.  Currently, our crop of skill players is not as good.

 

The fact that Hooker is better than Adams, arguably only, has nothing to do with as to whether or not switching to a 43 zone the year after a 34 man FS was drafted high, was a self inflicted result.

 

However someone wants to judge Ballard, he has no Grigson albatross with which to use as any excuse.

 

40+ sacks a year and RB's that couldn't average over 4 yards per carry and you don't think it held down our offense by quite a bit? 

 

Even Frank Gore didn't average 4 yards per carry here but as soon as he gets out of here, he goes to Miami and averages 4.6 yards per carry.  Freaking MIAMI

 

Oh and for the record Frank Gore in his entire 10 years with the 49er's never failed to get 4 yards or more per carry.  That only happened when he came to Indy and went away the season he left Miami.  (Granted in Buffalo last year he failed to hit 4 yards per carry but at this point he's old and that likely caused it.)

 

BAD OL was killing the Colts under Grigson.  It heavily injured our QB.  Our RB's couldn't run.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Everything is speculative and opinion. In short, we can agree to disagree, I'm just unable to buy that someone can be emotionally traumatized for years from what Luck called the cycle of injury, the FO underestimating it or has zero clue about it, failed to see behavioral signs, and then have zero clue when it happens. 

 

You seem to be unfamiliar with how easily millenials like Luck can become, what they call "traumatized"  Traumatized for Luck looks like it meant he couldn't screw off snowboarding as much as he wanted due to Contractual obligations during his several months long annual vacation from his Multi-million dollar job..... yeah...  sounds traumatizing.

 

Only thing that cat is traumatized by is his Wife.... lol... Poor Goober got hitched, had a kid, and the wife talked him into giving up what he loved doing....  AFTER she made sure he made a killing doing it and sacrificing HIS body week in and week out.... yeah, seen this before lol....He'll figure it out someday.... haha

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballard shouldn't have extended JB. That was a mistake. However, I can understand the mindset to help stabilize the lockerroom that had to be reeling at the news that a week and a half before your run for the SB your franchise starting QB just retired. 

 

Maybe JB was the only guy out there that close to the season? 

 

I really find it hard to believe that he is whiffing on QB when he literally had to field a starter, stabilize the young lockerroom all in a week and a half. The timing at which Luck retired was horrendous and it's hard to say there is a more tough position than this. 

 

Another point, Polian and Grigson failed to build an oline for around 6 years apiece, and you call Ballards weak point QB because he had a week and a half to replace a franchise QB? And didnt do so and maybe spent a tiny bit too much money on the guy? Seems to me he spent money on damage control. Damage Andrew caused when he retired A WEEK AND A HALF BEFORE THE SEASON. 

 

Give Ballard 6 years of horrible QB play before you call this Ballards achilles heal. That's what the other GMs got. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shafty138 said:

You seem to be unfamiliar with how easily millenials like Luck can become, what they call "traumatized"  Traumatized for Luck looks like it meant he couldn't screw off snowboarding as much as he wanted due to Contractual obligations during his several months long annual vacation from his Multi-million dollar job..... yeah...  sounds traumatizing.

 

Only thing that cat is traumatized by is his Wife.... lol... Poor Goober got hitched, had a kid, and the wife talked him into giving up what he loved doing....  AFTER she made sure he made a killing doing it and sacrificing HIS body week in and week out.... yeah, seen this before lol....He'll figure it out someday.... haha

Wow...

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CheezyColt said:

Wow...

 

Because theres a lot of millennials out there like Luck

4 minutes ago, CheezyColt said:

Wow...

 

Because theres a lot of millennials out there like Luck

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

40+ sacks a year and RB's that couldn't average over 4 yards per carry and you don't think it held down our offense by quite a bit? 

 

Even Frank Gore didn't average 4 yards per carry here but as soon as he gets out of here, he goes to Miami and averages 4.6 yards per carry.  Freaking MIAMI

 

Oh and for the record Frank Gore in his entire 10 years with the 49er's never failed to get 4 yards or more per carry.  That only happened when he came to Indy and went away the season he left Miami.  (Granted in Buffalo last year he failed to hit 4 yards per carry but at this point he's old and that likely caused it.)

 

BAD OL was killing the Colts under Grigson.  It heavily injured our QB.  Our RB's couldn't run.   

It was also scheme, not just talent.  The sacks occurred because Luck had the LONGEST snap to pass release time as any QB in the NFL, at least during one of his years here.  Pass pattern array and nobody other than TY.

 

And we had a great oline this year, yet went 6 and 10.  The oline doesn't define if a team has a good or bad roster.  Its just one small component.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Some of us are spoiled is the point.

We have been absolutely spoiled the last two decades. But I can tell you that Irsay isn't saying, "hey Chris, our fan base is spoiled, so don't worry about them". NE's level of "spoil" is 1000x more than Indy, I can guarantee you that they're not hearing the spoiled narrative. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shafty138 said:

You seem to be unfamiliar with how easily millenials like Luck can become, what they call "traumatized"  Traumatized for Luck looks like it meant he couldn't screw off snowboarding as much as he wanted due to Contractual obligations during his several months long annual vacation from his Multi-million dollar job..... yeah...  sounds traumatizing.

 

Only thing that cat is traumatized by is his Wife.... lol... Poor Goober got hitched, had a kid, and the wife talked him into giving up what he loved doing....  AFTER she made sure he made a killing doing it and sacrificing HIS body week in and week out.... yeah, seen this before lol....He'll figure it out someday.... haha

Comparing Luck's early retirement.....to being an entitled millennial?

 

BWaaaaaahaahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa. Good sir.....stop.......my side hurts.....oh god.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shafty138 said:

You seem to be unfamiliar with how easily millenials like Luck can become, what they call "traumatized"  Traumatized for Luck looks like it meant he couldn't screw off snowboarding as much as he wanted due to Contractual obligations during his several months long annual vacation from his Multi-million dollar job..... yeah...  sounds traumatizing.

 

Only thing that cat is traumatized by is his Wife.... lol... Poor Goober got hitched, had a kid, and the wife talked him into giving up what he loved doing....  AFTER she made sure he made a killing doing it and sacrificing HIS body week in and week out.... yeah, seen this before lol....He'll figure it out someday.... haha

Looks like you’re trying your best to fight Judubu for Worst Post in this Thread. 

Yes....   Andrew Luck will figure things out.   But I’m quite confident you won’t. And this post pretty much proves it. 
 

Dear God....       :facepalm:

 

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

It was also scheme, not just talent.  The sacks occurred because Luck had the LONGEST snap to pass release time as any QB in the NFL, at least during one of his years here.  Pass pattern array and nobody other than TY.

 

And we had a great oline this year, yet went 6 and 10.  The oline doesn't define if a team has a good or bad roster.  Its just one small component.

I'd say it is one of the biggest components.  

A great offensive line makes everyone on the team better.   QB, WR, TE and running backs.   Typically a better offensive line equals a greater time of possession, so the defense even benefits.  But that is not always the case so that may be skewed.  

 

i just feel that a great O-line gives the offense lots of opportunities.   3rd and 2 plays can be run or pass.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Comparing Luck's early retirement.....to being an entitled millennial?

 

BWaaaaaahaahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa. Good sir.....stop.......my side hurts.....oh god.......

 

While I don't necessarily buy into stereotyping, if this were 20 years ago, he'd be called "soft" at minimum, and that would be one of the kinder terms. These days are different, he's loaded, doesn't need to worry about income, and simply de-prioritized football. Moving on... 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'd say it is one of the biggest components.  

A great offensive line makes everyone on the team better.   QB, WR, TE and running backs.   Typically a better offensive line equals a greater time of possession, so the defense even benefits.  But that is not always the case so that may be skewed.  

 

i just feel that a great O-line gives the offense lots of opportunities.   3rd and 2 plays can be run or pass.  

Sure, its not like the Oline is NOT important, but I think it falls short of defining the entire team, as some comments seem to look at our roster through the simple lens of evaluating the Oline.

 

PM had basically the same Oline construction as many call terrible with RG/Luck.  PM had a great LT (Glenn/AC) and C (Saturday/Kelly) and the rest being journeymen.  But, he had two great WRs, a great TE and slot, and a RB who actually caught passes on dump offs when needed. 

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

Sure, its not like the Oline is NOT important, but I think it falls short of defining the entire team, as some comments seem to look at our roster through the simple lens of evaluating the Oline.

 

PM had basically the same Oline construction as many call terrible with RG/Luck.  PM had a great LT (Glenn/AC) and C (Saturday/Kelly) and the rest being journeymen.  But, he had two great WRs, a great TE and slot, and a RB who actually caught passes on dump offs when needed. 

Are you taking into consideration that Manning had a super quick release and threw a lot of timing patterns? How about having a great RB blocker when Addai was here? 

You cant judge any QB when you want to use Manning as an example. Manning was in a class of his own. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Everything is speculative and opinion. In short, we can agree to disagree, I'm just unable to buy that someone can be emotionally traumatized for years from what Luck called the cycle of injury, the FO underestimating it or has zero clue about it, failed to see behavioral signs, and then have zero clue when it happens. 

I agree to disagree on this point but to be clear, you're spinning the facts.

 

 

Quote

You're weighing the "hedging" very heavily. And you're discounting the failed evaluation aspects of it, not to mention the actual outcome. Again, we can agree to disagree. At the end of the day, the gamble/hedge failed.

 

Because hedging is all teams can do. They make evaluations based on present and past information. The future is obviously uncertain. I think the hedge was fairly successful. They committed a decent amount of money (because they had the funds to do so and were going to have spend a certain amount anyway) for a short-period of time. The hedge would have been a failure if they committed a large amount of money for a long-period of time which they clearly didn't do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Are you taking into consideration that Manning had a super quick release and threw a lot of timing patterns? How about having a great RB blocker when Addai was here? 

You cant judge any QB when you want to use Manning as an example. Manning was in a class of his own. 

I'm not judging the QBs.  Mentioning PM is anecdotal.  I'm showing how having proper talent at skilled positions can mitigate having superior talent along the oline.  Having superior skilled positions but average oline can lead to top 5 offensive stats too.  You haven't been involved in the entire conversation.

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

I'm not judging the QBs.  Mentioning PM is anecdotal.  I'm showing how having proper talent at skilled positions can mitigate having superior talent along the oline.  Having superior skilled positions but average oline can lead to top 5 offensive stats too.  You haven't been involved in the entire conversation.

Well games are won and lost in the trenches. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Restored said:

I agree to disagree on this point but to be clear, you're spinning the facts.

I'm not spinning facts. It's simple, it's the FO's job to have a finger on the pulse of their franchise players. This came out of nowhere. One way or another, but communication was not there. That's not spinning.

5 minutes ago, Restored said:

Because hedging is all teams can do. They make evaluations based on present and past information. The future is obviously uncertain. I think the hedge was fairly successful. They committed a decent amount of money (because they had the funds to do so and were going to have spend a certain amount anyway) for a short-period of time. The hedge would have been a failure if they committed a large amount of money for a long-period of time which they clearly didn't do.

 

In simple Vegas terms, you hedge in order to lose least when you're either not confident enough (in either direction), or simply don't have the guts to make a call. My argument is that there was enough past information to suggest you could make a bet one way or another (in this case, ride out existing/old contract).

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I'm not spinning facts. It's simple, it's the FO's job to have a finger on the pulse of their franchise players. This came out of nowhere. One way or another, but communication was not there. That's not spinning.

 

Yes, communication wasn't there on one side and everything we have seen to this point in terms of verifiable evidence has pointed to Luck being the one not communicating to Ballard, let alone many of his closest friends and teammates.

 

 

29 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

In simple Vegas terms, you hedge in order to lose least when you're either not confident enough (in either direction), or simply don't have the guts to make a call. My argument is that there was enough past information to suggest you could make a bet one way or another (in this case, ride out existing/old contract).

 

You understand the concept of hedging but are missing how the Colts applied it. Simply put, Colts didn't want to risk walking into this season without at least some form of an answer at the QB position and JB gave them that insurance incase the draft or free agency didn't pan out this offseason. They certainly knew JB's limitations but knew his upside as well, which is why his contract was structured in a way that gave them an out should he have not performed but also gave them an extra year at a reasonable rate should he have exceeded expectations. Going fully one way or the other would have put them in a riskier position than doing what they did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Restored said:

Yes, communication wasn't there on one side and everything we have seen to this point in terms of verifiable evidence has pointed to Luck being the one not communicating to Ballard, let alone many of his closest friends and teammates.

Outside of a "friend" who was surprised, nothing is "verifiable". I'd challenge the friend might not be that close. I have tons of workplace and other friends that I don't tell diddly about my personal life, especially my career intentions. Luck is an introvert, and you simply must treat those personality types differently relative to what we're discussing. 

39 minutes ago, Restored said:

You understand the concept of hedging but are missing how the Colts applied it. Simply put, Colts didn't want to risk walking into this season without at least some form of an answer at the QB position and JB gave them that insurance incase the draft or free agency didn't pan out this offseason. They certainly knew JB's limitations but knew his upside as well, which is why his contract was structured in a way that gave them an out should he have not performed but also gave them an extra year at a reasonable rate should he have exceeded expectations. Going fully one way or the other would have put them in a riskier position than doing what they did.

Ok, what exactly from his past besides leadership suggested there was this "upside". This goes back to what I said previously, and is getting circular. Bottom line there was nothing in his past that suggested he was ever good at many of the basics.

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

Outside of a "friend" who was surprised, nothing is "verifiable". I'd challenge the friend might not be that close. I have tons of workplace and other friends that I don't tell diddly about my personal life, especially my career intentions. Luck is an introvert, and you simply must treat those personality types differently relative to what we're discussing. 

 

It wasn't just Hasselbeck that was surprised. Other teammates and people (Manning and others) were surprised along with Ballard and Reich. I'm sure Ballard and co. were well aware of Luck's personality and how to communicate with him too. It doesn't necessarily mean that they should have known about the retirement though.

 

28 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Ok, what exactly from his past besides leadership suggested there was this "upside". This goes back to what I said previously, and is getting circular. Bottom line there was nothing in his past that suggested he was ever good at many of the basics.

 

At the time, many thought that JB was dealt a bad hand in 2017 and felt that between the Colts improved roster and coaching staff, they could see some improvement from JB. And to be fair to that point, when the Colts were at 5-2, many were singing JB's praises; even if some of the metrics showed otherwise. Point being, it was reasonable to think that JB could improve in some areas and perform adequately enough to be a stop-gap starter (though not necessarily as a franchise QB).

 

But don't let that notion be confused with what the Colts intentions were with JB. They clearly never planned on committing to him in the long-term but felt comfortable with paying him for two seasons as a stop-gap and to see what they really had in him.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Jdubu said:

I mean, everyone would have looked like a Cinderella after a Grigson like figure got the boot.

 

But not as good as Ballard made himself look with that 2018 draft that landed him the GM of the Year in only his second year.  :thmup:

 

Two rookie All-Pros in Nelson and Leonard.  I believe he's only the second GM in NFL history to do that, and half the armchair GMs in this forum hated those picks in real time.  :funny:

 

So I'm gonna say that Ballard is definitely not "just meh".  :hat:

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shafty138 said:

You seem to be unfamiliar with how easily millenials like Luck can become, what they call "traumatized"  Traumatized for Luck looks like it meant he couldn't screw off snowboarding as much as he wanted due to Contractual obligations during his several months long annual vacation from his Multi-million dollar job..... yeah...  sounds traumatizing.

 

Only thing that cat is traumatized by is his Wife.... lol... Poor Goober got hitched, had a kid, and the wife talked him into giving up what he loved doing....  AFTER she made sure he made a killing doing it and sacrificing HIS body week in and week out.... yeah, seen this before lol....He'll figure it out someday.... haha

 

You're usually a good poster.

 

But I lost a lot of respect for you with this post.

 

:scorebad:

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Everything is speculative and opinion. In short, we can agree to disagree, I'm just unable to buy that someone can be emotionally traumatized for years from what Luck called the cycle of injury, the FO underestimating it or has zero clue about it, failed to see behavioral signs, and then have zero clue when it happens. 

 

You seem to be unfamiliar with how easily millenials like Luck can become, what they call "traumatized"  Traumatized for Luck looks like it meant he couldn't screw off snowboarding as much as he wanted due to Contractual obligations during his several months long annual vacation from his Multi-million dollar job..... yeah...  sounds traumatizing.

 

Only thing that cat is traumatized by is his Wife.... lol... Poor Goober got hitched, had a kid, and the wife talked him into giving up what he loved doing....  AFTER she made sure he made a killing doing it and sacrificing HIS body week in and week out.... yeah, seen this before lol....He'll figure it out someday.... haha

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Shafty138 said:

You seem to be unfamiliar with how easily millenials like Luck can become, what they call "traumatized"  Traumatized for Luck looks like it meant he couldn't screw off snowboarding as much as he wanted due to Contractual obligations during his several months long annual vacation from his Multi-million dollar job..... yeah...  sounds traumatizing.

 

Only thing that cat is traumatized by is his Wife.... lol... Poor Goober got hitched, had a kid, and the wife talked him into giving up what he loved doing....  AFTER she made sure he made a killing doing it and sacrificing HIS body week in and week out.... yeah, seen this before lol....He'll figure it out someday.... haha

 

Hmm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shafty138 said:

Only thing that cat is traumatized by is his Wife.... lol... Poor Goober got hitched, had a kid, and the wife talked him into giving up what he loved doing....  AFTER she made sure he made a killing doing it and sacrificing HIS body week in and week out.... yeah, seen this before lol....He'll figure it out someday....

 

Hope you aren't married with kids.

 

If you are, I feel sorry for them.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The JB signing is smart.  Obviously Ballard doesn’t value these QBs in the drafT as highly as most.  Also, no one predicted Rivers would be able to walk from the Chargers coming off a good season. Ballard and Reich has an idea what QBs we’re going to be available in 2020 and why they signed JB for two years.  Honestly, they got the best QB available via free agency, draft or trade  and I commend the FO for not sticking by their sorta mistake in JB. 
 

This forum is goofy.  They complained about the Colts sticking with the status quo and playing people even tho it wasn’t working.  Now we have a GM that isn’t afraid to upgrade over a decision he previously made and people complain.  What do you think happens when a player works out?  If you choose to move on you normally always take some kind of cap hit. I think we will have 50million in cap next year just from the QB room.  We are in good shape and we have a solid QB room to compete for the playoffs.  Maybe it works out and maybe it doesn’t.  At least Ballard is trying something instead of running out the same nonesense that went 7-9 last year. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Restored said:

I agree to disagree on this point but to be clear, you're spinning the facts.

 

 

 

Because hedging is all teams can do. They make evaluations based on present and past information. The future is obviously uncertain. I think the hedge was fairly successful. They committed a decent amount of money (because they had the funds to do so and were going to have spend a certain amount anyway) for a short-period of time. The hedge would have been a failure if they committed a large amount of money for a long-period of time which they clearly didn't do.


If we evaluate the hedge through the lens did it help add cash spend to the books (getting them closer to the 89% threshold)...then sure it’s a success.

 

But through any other lens...I don’t see how it can be considered a success...he didn’t perform well...didn’t get an extension...team didn’t perform well overall...and now they have either a massive cap hit for a backup QB or a very big dead cap hit (provided they can’t/don’t trade him). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, shastamasta said:


If we evaluate the hedge through the lens did it help add cash spend to the books (getting them closer to the 89% threshold)...then sure it’s a success.

 

But through any other lens...I don’t see how it can be considered a success...he didn’t perform well...didn’t get an extension...team didn’t perform well overall...and now they have either a massive cap hit for a backup QB or a very big dead cap hit (provided they can’t/don’t trade him). 

 

That was the whole point of the hedge though. If he didn't perform well, the team wasn't on the hook for the long-term and could have an out after the season. Yes, the cap hit is arguably higher than it should be for a player of JB's caliber but it isn't as backbreaking as your alluding to it being.

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

 

That was the whole point of the hedge though. If he didn't perform well, the team wasn't on the hook for the long-term and could have an out after the season. Yes, the cap hit is arguably higher than it should be for a player of JB's caliber but it isn't as backbreaking as your alluding to it being.

Raiders had a much better/smarter hedge contract for Mariotta. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Raiders had a much better/smarter hedge contract for Mariotta. 

 

Of course it does when you have a player that's brought in to play as a backup (barring Raiders don't move Carr) and has an expansive body of work to go off of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2020 at 12:20 PM, DougDew said:

Meh is in the eye of the beholder as to what it means.  I don't think he's meh, but several replies here just fail to see reality.

 

He did NOT inherit a bad situation.  Unlike most GMs, he inherited a team that was 8-8 at its five year worst.

 

He did NOT inherit a terrible roster.  Some in the fan base who judge everything on how strong the Oline is keep saying that Ballard inherited a bad roster just because he inherited a bad oline.  In fact, by the contracts he's about to hand out, he inherited a top 5 LT and a top 5 C, so saying that the oline was bad may not even be accurate.   Not to mention he just resigned Clark who may be finally developing over that big guy Ballard drafted his first year.  Ballard inherited a QB who held the ball too long looking for the chunk play.

 

Ballard inherited a bad defense and a bad defensive scheme.  Ballard himself set his timeline back by making moves to satisfy that scheme.  He signed Hankins and Simon, then cut them when he changed schemes.  He cut a good player, Henry Anderson, simply because he was not a scheme fit.  He drafted Hooker, who some fans defend the pick, was drafted to play in the 34 man, not our 43 zone....and no....our 43 man deep zone cover 1 was never the intent, but has been an after thought, IMO.

 

Ballard owns this defense.  Its tough to say that he is languishing under the lingering albatross the previous GM gave him.  Whatever albatross there may be, Ballard added to it himself by the decisions he made his first year here.  

 

The defense is coming along by making good decisions about value and player selection.  Took pick 13 to make a big step, and that's not unusual or special.

 

The QB situation was an unfortunate set back.  Not his fault.   But his response so far was to sign his backup to a very big contract before the backup even showed much.  Now he's now signed a 38 year old vet to an expensive contract because the unproven backup has shown he never deserved the contract.

 

The Colts offensive skill positions are probably worse than when he got here, considering we have one TE (the other one he signed flamed out), still no #2, and TY is probably a step slower.

 

The offense needs to improve the QB and skill positions.  I assume they will be addressed this draft.

It's completely unfair to say Ballard inherited an 8-8 or better roster.  It's not completely off the mark, but you seem to draw a line from Grigson's termination and Ballards hiring.  The fact of hte matter is, Ballard took over a roster that without Luck in 2017 went 3-13.  2 years later and a new HC staff, that roster improved to 7-9 without Luck (and the same replacement starting QB).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2020 at 3:37 PM, Moosejawcolt said:

Developmental is the intent of total over hauling a player.  Mahommes was a top 10 player.  I doubt Reid traded up with idea of developing him.  He knew he could play in the NFL and he  built an offense around his talents.  Rodgers was slated to go as high as #1.  He fell because teams didnt need a qb in that draft.  Lamar was drafted with the intent of building an offense around him based on his skill set.  I bet when these trams drafted these 3 players, they were pretty confident they could play in the NFL. Developmental picks, r guys u pick way later in the draft. Just my 2 cents

Why do people say the bolded?  That is simply not true.  He was scoffed at being in the top 10 by many sources, precisely because he was almost universally agreed to need a year of development  He was one of those players where his value was in the eye of the beholder.  Some thought he was a mid first round pick based on talent, but many many others thought he was a Day 2 pick.  But almost everyone agreed that he needed to hold a clipboard for a year. It kills me that this revisionist history on Mahommes is just accepted and stated as fact by some.  Opinions on him back in 2017 were just as divisive as they are on Love or Lamar Jackson for instance.  Mahommes needed a ton of overhaul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Restored said:

 

That was the whole point of the hedge though. If he didn't perform well, the team wasn't on the hook for the long-term and could have an out after the season. Yes, the cap hit is arguably higher than it should be for a player of JB's caliber but it isn't as backbreaking as your alluding to it being.

 

It's not just the cap hit...the Colts gained little upside from that deal. JB becoming a franchise QB was a dubious proposition at best...so if the structure was based on incentives OR that the extra year was mostly non-gtd...making it a more of a team option...that would have given them an out or a benefit. But instead...they end up with a big chunk of gtd cap space. Colts took the risk with little (tangible) reward.

 

And that cap hit is definitively much higher than it should be for a backup QB (and JB as well)...especially for a team that is clearly trying to win next season. To put it in perspective...his cap hit (if kept) is equivalent to another Buckner level player...and the dead cap hit is the same as a player like Houston. Whether that money would be used this season is debatable...but because of rollover...wasted cap space is still wasted cap space.

 

But we will have to agree to disagree on this.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

It's completely unfair to say Ballard inherited an 8-8 or better roster.  It's not completely off the mark, but you seem to draw a line from Grigson's termination and Ballards hiring.  The fact of hte matter is, Ballard took over a roster that without Luck in 2017 went 3-13.  2 years later and a new HC staff, that roster improved to 7-9 without Luck (and the same replacement starting QB).

 

 

In the context of what Ballard has done, comments continue to point to what he inherited, so yes, that line of when he took over is important because that's how people seem to want to measure what he has done since then.    

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...