Chris Ballard Press Conference - April 17

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

As I understand it, team's were fighting for extra roster spots both on full and game day rosters, and their biggest reason was OL. Guessing they added the OL caveat in their to keep folks honest?

 

Here's a few cuts 

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001106247/article/nfl-players-approve-cba-impact-on-league-in-2020-and-beyond

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2020/03/15/nfl-cba-collective-bargaining-agreement-changes-details/4878786002/

 

 

 

 

That seems like it's specific to the game day roster though. And I guess they're mandating 8 OL dressed for every game?

[GRUMPY OLD MAN]

On 4/18/2020 at 4:39 PM, stitches said:

I'd like to hear your opinion on Michael Pittman Jr and Van Jefferson.

You should ask east street , he puts a lot of work and research into the game, may be the most informative on this forum

 

[EastStreet]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That seems like it's specific to the game day roster though. And I guess they're mandating 8 OL dressed for every game?

Not sure, but thought what I read (couldn't find the article I wanted), that there was an OL stipulation on both. Could be wrong though.

[EastStreet]

17 minutes ago, DEFENSE said:

You should ask east street , he puts a lot of work and research into the game, may be the most informative on this forum

 

Here's my take....

 

Pittman - For the most part, I agree with Superman. I really like him, but like Claypool a little bit better. Pittman has better "natural" hands, but less speed. Pittman to me is a bit more limited to possession type routes, while Claypool can do both wide/deep and possession type routes. Both can 50/50 a ball anywhere. I'd be happy with either. I'm a ND fan, so prefer Claypool lol....

 

Van Jefferson - To me, he's a bit of an all around guy. Great route running, but average size and speed. He's played multiple positions, but IMO will end up at slot. Likely a depth guy unless he goes to a team that's heavy on possession and slot type routes. Good pedigree and IQ, just doesn't stack up in the measurables compared to the other guys. Didn't have a lot of production, but IMO that's product of the team and O he played on, more than a dig on him. There's a lot of other guys I'd take before him, but he may very well turn out to be an above average possession slot.

[EastStreet]

A few more things on VJ... Thought he had a great game vs LSU even though they lost. Stepped up big time. Didn't step up so much vs UGA (I was cheering for them hard vs UGA). Had a good bowl game as well IIRC.

[stitches]

7 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I like Pittman. They don't run any pro routes in that offense, but he looks like he has the feet and balance to be a successful route runner. He has excellent body control and spatial awareness. Not a burner but not slow at all. Great size, obviously. I assume because of his family he understands pro concepts. Not quick, but decent feet. He won't be a separation guy but with his size and hand strength maybe it's not necessary. 

 

He's a good prospect. More than just a big body, but has to do more than out jump defenders in the NFL. 

 

Your thoughts?

 

I'll get to Van Jefferson. 

Yep, we see him similarly. He has good feet. This is what jumped at me, especially impressive for his size. I think he has a good feel about route running. He probably won't be the best of separators, but with some of those big bodied receivers a little bit of separation is all that's needed for their physicality to shine at the catch point. He has some of the best hands in the class... Great tracking the ball downfield. Good feel for zone... Good feel for finding open space on broken plays and coming back to his QB and presenting his frame to his QB to throw to. Overall seems like a really smart playing receiver. He's not the most explosive or elusive player after the catch but he's very competitive and again has good feet to make some defenders miss and gain additional yardage. He's not blazing fast, but he's not a plodder either, he has some long speed if you allow him to run inimpeded. Good bonus - he seems to like blocking for his teammates.

[lollygagger8]

Man this week is already taking forever....this draft is taking forever to get here

[stitches]

@Superman @EastStreet here's Cosell breaking down a couple of plays from Jeudy and Pittman:

 

 

 

[EastStreet]

11 minutes ago, stitches said:

@Superman @EastStreet here's Cosell breaking down a couple of plays from Jeudy and Pittman:

 

Yup, Pittman's got game. My only concern with him is adjusting to the speed and physicality of press corners in the NFL. Read something that he didn't play against the top 2 PCBs in the PAC last year for whatever reason. I think he'll be fine, just wish he had a bit more speed.

 

Here's Claypool's highlights

 

[stitches]

35 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Yup, Pittman's got game. My only concern with him is adjusting to the speed and physicality of press corners in the NFL. Read something that he didn't play against the top 2 PCBs in the PAC last year for whatever reason. I think he'll be fine, just wish he had a bit more speed.

 

Here's Claypool's highlights

 

I like Claypool but he's nowhere as polished as Pittman. I prefer Pittman... Claypool is more athletic but I kind of don't think it shows that much on tape. I'd love either of them on the Colts but I have Claypool more as a third rounder... 

[EastStreet]

12 minutes ago, stitches said:

I like Claypool but he's nowhere as polished as Pittman. I prefer Pittman... Claypool is more athletic but I kind of don't think it shows that much on tape. I'd love either of them on the Colts but I have Claypool more as a third rounder... 

I disagree on the "nowhere as polished" thing. Pittman's route tree was pretty simplified. And he's very similar to Claypool in terms of needing to improve getting out of breaks. I'd say Claypool's route tree is actually larger due to ND's reliance on him. USC on the other hand, had 3 other stud WRs, especially ARSB. Vaughns is pretty darn good too. 

[stitches]

17 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I disagree on the "nowhere as polished" thing. Pittman's route tree was pretty simplified. And he's very similar to Claypool in terms of needing to improve getting out of breaks. I'd say Claypool's route tree is actually larger due to ND's reliance on him. USC on the other hand, had 3 other stud WRs, especially ARSB. Vaughns is pretty darn good too. 

I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. It's not just about how expansive route tree you run. It's also about how well you run the routes you do run + there are other technical and savvy aspects that I think Pittman does better. I don't know if USC having 2 other great receivers is a point in favor or against Pittman. When you are the top dog in a room of great talent that too indicates something.

[stitches]

BTW @EastStreet do you know Claypool's birthday(age)? I've been trying to find it but I can't. That's something that gives me a bit of a pause on Pittman. He will be 23 in his rookie year and he truly broke out just in his senior year.

 

 

[EastStreet]

27 minutes ago, stitches said:

I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. It's not just about how expansive route tree you run. It's also about how well you run the routes you do run + there are other technical and savvy aspects that I think Pittman does better. I don't know if USC having 2 other great receivers is a point in favor or against Pittman. When you are the top dog in a room of great talent that too indicates something.

Purely my opinion, but both Pittman and Claypool draft reviews talk about needing to improve coming out of breaks. So can't say either really has a lot of "polish". We can however say Claypool had a larger route tree which is part of the equation. I've watched every ND game of Claypool's career, and watch a ton of USC simply because of the rivalry. Neither is close to a polished route running technician. 

 

I'd argue St. Brown, as a true Soph, was the top dog in the last half of the season for USC. Don't get me wrong, Pittman still played well, but St. Brown is the better WR and it showed. Different types of WRs though. Purely my opinion, but when you're the only dog, you're getting doubled a lot, and draw more attention. When there are several good options, you get doubled less. There's also the fact that Pittman had a better QB, or at least a more wide open O.

 

Most agree though that Pittman has the best body of total production, while most also agree Claypool likely has the highest long term ceiling. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out the next couple years. I bet they both do really well with the right teams.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

I disagree on the "nowhere as polished" thing. Pittman's route tree was pretty simplified. And he's very similar to Claypool in terms of needing to improve getting out of breaks. I'd say Claypool's route tree is actually larger due to ND's reliance on him. USC on the other hand, had 3 other stud WRs, especially ARSB. Vaughns is pretty darn good too. 

 

The polish that Pittman has shows up in nuanced ways, like his stacking receivers, body position, hands flashing late in the play, navigating the sideline, etc. Claypool probably runs more routes but I don't see anything in Pittman that would limit his ability to run any pro route.

[EastStreet]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

The polish that Pittman has shows up in nuanced ways, like his stacking receivers, body position, hands flashing late in the play, navigating the sideline, etc. Claypool probably runs more routes but I don't see anything in Pittman that would limit his ability to run any pro route.

I see much of the same in Claypool. Both can stack, both play the sideline well, both great body positioning/control. Pittman has better natural hands, but I wouldn't say Claypool is deficient in that area. He needs to work on hand readiness in shallow routes from slot, but intermediate and deep he's more than fine. Both can get better from the LOS vs the press. I do see Claypool being a better long term downfield threat simply due to speed. Not sure if Pittman will be be more than a 50/50 downfield guy vs NFL DB speed.

[Coltsman1788]

On 4/17/2020 at 3:58 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I am sure Ballard is taking that position serious , OMG some of the stuff you post is so out there 

Ok...I’ll come to Chloe’s defense a little here.  Lol
 

Ballard has on several occasions said something to the effect of “you guys here(referring to fans and media) get excited about wide receivers. I get excited about the trenches.”  So while I wouldn’t necessarily word it like she did, (ie. not taking wide receiver seriously) I think her gist was that she wants Ballard to place more of a priority on the position this year because there is definitely a need for another playmaker on this roster.  If one is there at 34, take him...no need for Ballard to try to get too cute.  

[Coltsman1788]

On 4/17/2020 at 5:57 PM, Superfly said:

 

She reached Senior Member status in 3 weeks!  I remember well!
 

 

Wow...that’s almost as prolific as Jules. Lol.  Where is she these days anyway? 

[MPStack]

21 minutes ago, Coltsman1788 said:

Wow...that’s almost as prolific as Jules. Lol.  Where is she these days anyway? 

Took me six years! lol

[krunk]

I like Brian Edwards more than I like Pittman.  Pittmans alright with me, but I like Edwards better.

[CurBeatElite]

On 4/17/2020 at 1:16 PM, buccolts said:

 

Dropping back from 34 doesn't mean he isn't taking the WR position seriously.

Let's wait to see what happens before judging. Even then, it's fruitless.

 

On 4/17/2020 at 12:27 PM, ar7 said:

Chris Ballard is having a press conference with the local media today. It started at 2pm.

 

Here is some of what he has said so far.

 

 

 

 

 

On 4/17/2020 at 2:52 PM, Chloe6124 said:

I am tired of fifth round developmental WR. Can we please get one that can at least contribute right away.

 

He said they haven’t made a decision yet on Hookers fifth year option. That says a lot they are not sold on him and are looking to upgrade.

 

We'll see in a few days if we don't take a WR before the 5th round, I doubt we don't .. but not going to worry about it until it happens.

 

He said that talks about Hooker's 5th year will intensify after the draft.  Hooker has played 7 games, 13 games, and 13 games so far.  Hard to be sold on a guy who's missed that much time in just 3 seasons, especially when he had some injury concerns out of college.  Don't think it means Ballard has given up on Hooker, but it seems to make sense to see if the guy can actually make it through a full 16 game season before wanting to rely on him as the future at FS which is a pretty important position in a cover 2 D.

 

On 4/17/2020 at 2:55 PM, Chloe6124 said:

The facts are Campbell is the only WR he has used any high draft picks on and no big FA.  SO far he hasn’t invested in the position like he should.

 

He signed Funchess, who was one of the biggest named FAs available last year and a guy who Reich was very high on.  Funchess got injured for the year in week 1.  Campbell was hurt the majority of the year.  If those two guy were fully healthy, and if Luck was around, we could be saying we had a great WR group last year..  also, Ballard inherited a poor overall team with a lot of players who were around based on how they were supposed to fit Pagano's system rather than the system Ballard wanted to run.  In just a few years, he's gotten us one of the best OL in the league (both in pass protection and run blocking).  One of the best LB corps in the league.  A top 7 running game (something Pagano and Grigs always wanted, but never had).  

 

Pretty sure the only guys from the initial roster still on the roster today are TY, Doyle, Le'Raven Clark, Ryan Kelly... with Rogers, Vinny, Geathers all remaining free agents.  That's a pretty darn impressive overhaul.  Had Ballard drafted a WR with top 3 picks in the 2018 draft, we would potentially not have gotten all-pro OL Quenton Nelson, all-pro LB Darius Leonard or very solid OL Braden Smith -- and you'd then probably be complaining that Ballard didn't do enough to give us a good OL or LB corps.  

 

He pretty clearly laid his gameplan out from day 1, and so far he's went ahead and executed (built a solid OL, not overspending on older FA, building through the draft, understanding that overhauling an NFL franchise takes time, etc.).  Sure he hasn't been perfect, but he's been doing pretty much everything he's said he was going to do.  

 

On 4/17/2020 at 2:58 PM, krunk said:

I'm just saying usually when I listen to him he sort of tips his hand just a tad bit if there's somebody there he really likes.  He'll usually say it with some excitement in his voice.  He's been somewhat the opposite so far.  It's making me think he's not totally head over hills with a particularly QB.  I could be wrong.  I think if there's someone there who could be the franchise you have to be pretty in love with them to a certain level.  That's why he says "You can't force it".  I just get this feeling he doesn't see anyone there with those early picks that he's certain about.  Somebody that's potentially better than Brissett or Kelly.  Plus I don't think it's out of question that Rivers may play one more year.

 

He has publicly stated very recently that he hopes Rivers plays at least 2 years in Indy.  Rivers said that, too.  They said in negotiation, that came up and they decided to take it one year at a time for now.  TBH, after Burrows, I'm really not impressed with this QB Draft class.  There weren't a lot of younger FAs to make long term franchises QBs either.  The fact that they seem pretty committed to keeping Jacoby around as a backup, to me, is an indicator that we won't be going QB in this draft.

 

On 4/17/2020 at 3:03 PM, Chloe6124 said:

If we don’t take a QB it has the possibility of setting us so far behind. What if rivers is terrible. What if he decides it is time to retire. We have no QB for 2021. Jacoby is not going to resign if rivers is bad. We need a qb ready to step in if this doesn’t work out. I would hate to have to start a rookie with this team being in it’s prime. Having rivers is the  perfect time to get that QB ready so we have no set backs.

 

What if Rivers isn't terrible?  What if we drafted a QB with our first pick in round 2 and he was a bust (no QBs in this draft, after Burrows are locks to be NFL stars, even Burrows isn't a lock)?  Then we wouldn't get that coveted WR you complain about above and we'd have a much bigger set back.  Relax.

[krunk]

2 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

 

 

We'll see in a few days if we don't take a WR before the 5th round, I doubt we don't .. but not going to worry about it until it happens.

 

He said that talks about Hooker's 5th year will intensify after the draft.  Hooker has played 7 games, 13 games, and 13 games so far.  Hard to be sold on a guy who's missed that much time in just 3 seasons, especially when he had some injury concerns out of college.  Don't think it means Ballard has given up on Hooker, but it seems to make sense to see if the guy can actually make it through a full 16 game season before wanting to rely on him as the future at FS which is a pretty important position in a cover 2 D.

 

 

He signed Funchess, who was one of the biggest named FAs available last year and a guy who Reich was very high on.  Funchess got injured for the year in week 1.  Campbell was hurt the majority of the year.  If those two guy were fully healthy, and if Luck was around, we could be saying we had a great WR group last year..  also, Ballard inherited a poor overall team with a lot of players who were around based on how they were supposed to fit Pagano's system rather than the system Ballard wanted to run.  In just a few years, he's gotten us one of the best OL in the league (both in pass protection and run blocking).  One of the best LB corps in the league.  A top 7 running game (something Pagano and Grigs always wanted, but never had).  

 

Pretty sure the only guys from the initial roster still on the roster today are TY, Doyle, Le'Raven Clark, Ryan Kelly... with Rogers, Vinny, Geathers all remaining free agents.  That's a pretty darn impressive overhaul.  Had Ballard drafted a WR with top 3 picks in the 2018 draft, we would potentially not have gotten all-pro OL Quenton Nelson, all-pro LB Darius Leonard or very solid OL Braden Smith -- and you'd then probably be complaining that Ballard didn't do enough to give us a good OL or LB corps.  

 

He pretty clearly laid his gameplan out from day 1, and so far he's went ahead and executed (built a solid OL, not overspending on older FA, building through the draft, understanding that overhauling an NFL franchise takes time, etc.).  Sure he hasn't been perfect, but he's been doing pretty much everything he's said he was going to do.  

 

 

He has publicly stated very recently that he hopes Rivers plays at least 2 years in Indy.  Rivers said that, too.  They said in negotiation, that came up and they decided to take it one year at a time for now.  TBH, after Burrows, I'm really not impressed with this QB Draft class.  There weren't a lot of younger FAs to make long term franchises QBs either.  The fact that they seem pretty committed to keeping Jacoby around as a backup, to me, is an indicator that we won't be going QB in this draft.

 

 

What if Rivers isn't terrible?  What if we drafted a QB with our first pick in round 2 and he was a bust (no QBs in this draft, after Burrows are locks to be NFL stars, even Burrows isn't a lock)?  Then we wouldn't get that coveted WR you complain about above and we'd have a much bigger set back.  Relax.

Keeping Brissett and Kelly was my signal also

[CurBeatElite]

On 4/17/2020 at 4:12 PM, stitches said:

People here are piling on @Chloe6124 but she's to some degree right about the QB position. We have no QB under contract for 2021. The starter for 2020 is 38 year old who had a down year last year, the backup is a QB who has shown he's not the answer and the 3d QB is a 4th year QB with zero starts in the league.

 

You can always sign a bridge QB for next year if need be, but this goes completely against the timeline of this roster and the other moves Ballard made this off-season. We don't need bridge/placeholder QBs when this team is ready to win.

 

The reason I was advocating for Rivers signing to begin with was because I assumed we would take our QB of the future in the draft and he can sit behind Rivers for a year and learn and hopefully be ready by next year. Taking Rivers with the hope that he will be good not only this year, but next year too was not my idea of good planning for the most important position on our roster.

 

Entering next season without our QB of the future on the roster is less than ideal. And I'm not talking about forcing a QB or not here. Noone is talking about taking a QB you don't like. I'm talking purely as a position this team will be in going into next couple of seasons.

 

If a QB doesn't have the physical, mental and character traits which Ballard, Reich and the rest of the staff/front office want coming out of college, it probably doesn't matter who he sits behind for a year or two.  If they don't have 'it', they don't have 'it'.  

 

If Rivers doesn't pan out this year (and if Kelley isn't the answer), we'll likely have to address QB in the offseason.  As it stands now, DeShone Kizer is a FA (age 25) -- there has been a bit of talk about the Raiders trading Carr to let Kizer take over.. so let's say they franchise Kizer, that'd mean they'd want to trade Carr (a lot of rumors before we signed Rivers of that happening this year).  

 

Not a huge fan of 2021's QB Draft class, much like I'm not a fan of this year's draft class at QB... but there are some decent guys there, as well.

 

Reich has said numerous times he hasn't seen any drop off in Rivers physical ability.  Rivers played behind the worst line in football last year, now he's playing behind one of the best... that alone should help a lot.  Rivers and Ballard both just said they are hoping this works out for 2-3 years even though they just signed a 1 year contract.  The 2022 QB class seems to have a lot more talent than the 2020 or the 2021 class.  Ballard has also said he looks several years ahead when considering drafting.  I won't be shocked if he's got his eyes on targets several years away.

 

On 4/17/2020 at 12:27 PM, ar7 said:

Chris Ballard is having a press conference with the local media today. It started at 2pm.

 

Here is some of what he has said so far.

 

 

 

Javon Patterson (IR) and Gerri Green (Practice Squad) were the only two guys not on an active NFL roster from those 3 drafts.  Having 29 draft picks in 3 years and having them all still be in the NFL is pretty darn impressive.  I imagine that if he's not the only GM in the league to have drafted anywhere near that well, he's one of the few.

 

On 4/17/2020 at 12:54 PM, Chloe6124 said:

He mentioned wanting more picks.  If we pass on a WR at 34 and trades down this isn’t going to be pretty. At some point he has to start taking this position serious.

 

Let's look at the team needs for the teams between 34-44.

 

35 - Detroit -- need CB, Edge, RB (not a likely threat to go for a WR)

36 - NYG -- OT, LB, Edge (not a likely threat to go for a WR)

37- LA Chargers - QB, OT (not a likely threat to go for a WR)

38 - Carolina - CB, LB, TE (not a likely threat to go for a WR)

39 - Miami - QB, OT, RB (not a likely threat to go for a WR)

40 - Houston - CB, DT (after acquiring Brandin Cooks, not likely to need a WR)

41 - Cleveland - OT, LB (not a likely threat to go for a WR unless they trade Beckham)

42 - Jax -- DL, CB (not a likely threat to go for a WR, especially when Ngakoue gets traded or released)

43 - Chicago- G/C, S (not a likely threat to go for a WR)

 

So, a WR is not a top 3 need for any team between 34 and 44.  It's arguably our biggest need.  

 

Unless some sort of arrest or injury happens between now and the 23rd -- we can expect for certain that CeeDee Lamb, Jerry Jeudy, and Henry Ruggs will be off the board.  In all likelihood, Justin Jefferson will also be off the board.   

 

A good chance that at least one of the following will be off the board: Tee Higgins, Chase Claypool, Brandon Aiyuk, Jalen Reagor, Denzel Mims, Michael Pittman Jr.

 

Also, a good chance that at least 4 of those guys will still be on the board (maybe all 6).  Then we have a group of very solid WRs in this draft including big guys who will likely be around late into round 2, potentially into round 4-5 like Gabriel Davis, Laviska Shenault, Jr., Collin Johnson, Van Jefferson, Tyler Johnson, Antonio Gandy-Golden, Bryan Edwards, Stephen Guidry, Donvan Peoples-Jones... along with some smaller guys like KJ Hamler (who I think could be the replacement to TY at 5'9" 178 with 4.4 speed), Lynn Bowden, Kalija Lipscomb, Quez Watkins (6'0" 185 4.36 forty), John Hightower...who will all likely be around in later round two with some lasting til round 4-5.

 

Given that the teams between pick 34-44 don't have much need for WR (or at least all teams have 3 bigger needs),  and several of them have OL and CB needs... it's very plausible that we trade from 34 back to 36, 37, 38, etc. and still have a picking from that top group (potentially two with another being available at 44).  

 

A lot of people also think we have some need for CB, OT, Edge.... if the right player fell, we could grab them at 34, too.  Then we could still likely trade back a few slots from 44 and a guy from the upper group I mentioned would still likely be available, with some guys from the lower list being available in rounds 3-5.  

 

This is a very deep WR class.  It also happens to be a very big WR class.  I am pretty sure we'll be fine.