Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Myles said:

I'd like to get Darnold from the Jets for a 2nd round pick and sign Rosen for cheap.  Then have them and Eason duke it out for the 3 QB spots.   Darnold and Rosen were both thought of as the best QB's in the draft in 2018 and both have only been a part of crappy teams.  

I'm not one to gauge my opinion based upon how others have evaluated somehting, but the fact that Rosen isn't even on an NFL roster, but is sitting on a practice squad for a team (I forget which) says alot, IMO.  My goodness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think if Andrew Luck was still on this team, this wouldn't even be a question and he would be viewed as the best GM in football.

Great GM for roster depth and complete team.   However, high value positions like WR and pass rusher, definitely lacking in top notch talent drafted or seeing results on the field, it is lik

Given that he had to rebuild this roster that he inherited and then had the Luck departure to deal with, I believe he's done a very good job.  Our defense has improved and we have a top notch OL that

5 hours ago, chickenMan said:

I think I can sum up my opinion on Ballard pretty well with this:

If we had every man healthy on this team and Andrew Luck played for us still, we would be a top 3 NFL team.

The only massive hole on this roster is QB. Sure, we need another stud WR and a true pass rusher, but those issues could be masked by consistently stellar QB play (like how KC’s issues are masked by Mahomes most games)

There was a time on this forum where the prevailing comments centered around how much Luck MASKED deficiencies in the roster.  It was away of looking past successes to criticize the roster.  

 

There is always a void when you lose the franchise QB.  I'm sure KC built their roster around what Mahomes, and only Mahomes, can do.  Just like we did with PM, and probably was the case with Luck.  Without that franchise QB...and that specific franchise QB whose strengths the team was built around (and with Luck it was long-ball accuracy, not short-ball accuracy) the rosters can look average to poor.

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

I'm not one to gauge my opinion based upon how others have evaluated somehting, but the fact that Rosen isn't even on an NFL roster, but is sitting on a practice squad for a team (I forget which) says alot, IMO.  My goodness.

Bucs

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I listen to Philadelphia sports talk and see what a mess the Eagles are:

Over the cap

Bringing in FAs that aren’t working out

Bad drafting

 

I’m just glad we have Ballard. Unlike Grigson, Ballard gets feedback from others.

 

The Colts rank 10th in passing YPG and 8th in Avg. yards per completion.

 

 I think the receivers have some potential and are not as bad as some might think. 
 

  When Ballard came in, he said it was going to take some time, he was going to build from inside out. This team is a work in progress but it is headed in the right direction.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Ballard is the best drafting GM in the league since 2018 IMO (the year he brought HIS scouts in). However, he's shown an inability to draft WRs and EDGE rushers so far, and we don't know if he is able to get us a franchise QB back post-Luck. I do think this team will be good for years to come with him as GM, but Ballard has to drop his mentality that the QB isn't the most important guy on the team. That's just not true, and it's extremely obvious with the Colts.

 

Otherwise, if he continues his drafts the way he currently does them, I want him as my GM. He just needs a plan to get us our new QB whether it be the draft, FA, trade, or starting Eason at some point.

Oh brother

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

Where in the world did you come up with the idea that Chris Ballard thinks QB is NOT the most important position on the field?!?  He’s never said that, and he’s never even implied it.   It’s stunning that you think that. 
 

Ballard has said he wants to build the roster up around his quarterback so he doesn’t feel he has to win every game by himself, as Andrew did.   He wants a roster good enough to win if the QB isn’t having a great game.   So the running game, the OL, the defense and special teams.  
 

All 32 GMs know the QB is the most important position in the game.   The problem  is there aren’t 32 quality QBs to lead 32 teams.   There are roughly 16-20, sometimes a few more,  in any given year.   Chris Ballard knows how important the QB is.   He had Andrew Luck, for God sakes!   How does his team look without him?

 

 

He said that after Luck left, if I can find the interview I will. He said though that it's a team game, and it's about 53 guys, not one guy (referring to Luck and the QB position). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

He said that after Luck left, if I can find the interview I will. He said though that it's a team game, and it's about 53 guys, not one guy (referring to Luck and the QB position). 

He wants to build up a solid team first then get the QB. 

 

He's building a team the right way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he the best?  Is he the worst?  Who am I to judge?

 

All I know is I'm glad he's in charge of this team right now and I think he's doing a much better job than the guy before him.  Besides, I think it's premature to judge a guy until his job is done.  He said it was going to take time and it has.  It's still a work in progress.  But I like the way it's heading.  Get a franchise QB in here and this team can be special IMHO.  Add a stud WR and it can be a Superbowl team IMHO.

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

He said that after Luck left, if I can find the interview I will. He said though that it's a team game, and it's about 53 guys, not one guy (referring to Luck and the QB position). 

You’re twisting his meaning.   There's not an NFL executive anywhere on any team in the National Football League who doesn’t know that quarterback is the most important position.  
 

It’s a passing league.   The rules all favor more passing.   Everyone knows that. 
 

This is a you issue Jared, it’s not a Chris Ballard issue. 

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

You’re twisting his meaning.   There's not an NFL executive anywhere on any team in the National Football League who doesn’t know that quarterback is the most important position.  
 

It’s a passing league.   The rules all favor more passing.   Everyone knows that. 
 

This is a you issue Jared, it’s not a Chris Ballard issue. 

Then don't lie if you're Ballard. Everyone but the most casual fans see through it. 

 

Also, this is definitely a Chris Ballard issue. He has a 38-39 year old Rivers at QB with a bust starter in Brissett also leaving. It's his issue to get us a franchise QB as the GM of the Colts with Luck gone, for better or for worse.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

He said that after Luck left, if I can find the interview I will. He said though that it's a team game, and it's about 53 guys, not one guy (referring to Luck and the QB position). 


The quote was actually from his introductory press conference.


Here’s the quote:
 

"Alright, let me say this," Ballard said when asked about Andrew Luck, "because Andrew's a great player, but it will never be about one guy. It will never be about one guy. It's about all 53 men in that locker room, it's about all 63 men, including the practice squad, that we have. It will never be about one person. It will always be about the team. And is he a good piece? Absolutely. But he's just one of the 53 men that we have to go win with.”

 

He is emphasizing the team...and doesn’t explicitly say that QB isn’t the most important. However, that last line about his franchise QB (at the time) being just one of 53 players somewhat implies that he doesn’t place a premium on the position.

 

Of course it’s really easy to say these things when you have a franchise QB. Going forward...it IS all about finding that one guy. Ballard has said that he won’t force it...and I can respect that...but it is something that will need to happen sooner than later. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, shasta519 said:


The quote was actually from his introductory press conference.


Here’s the quote:
 

"Alright, let me say this," Ballard said when asked about Andrew Luck, "because Andrew's a great player, but it will never be about one guy. It will never be about one guy. It's about all 53 men in that locker room, it's about all 63 men, including the practice squad, that we have. It will never be about one person. It will always be about the team. And is he a good piece? Absolutely. But he's just one of the 53 men that we have to go win with.”

 

He is emphasizing the team...and doesn’t explicitly say that QB isn’t the most important. However, that last line about his franchise QB (at the time) being just one of 53 players somewhat implies that he doesn’t place a premium on the position.

 

Of course it’s really easy to say these things when you have a franchise QB. Going forward...it IS all about finding that one guy. Ballard has said that he won’t force it...and I can respect that...but it is something that will need to happen sooner than later. 

Thanks Shasta! Appreciate you finding that for me! :)  :thmup:

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

Then don't lie if you're Ballard. Everyone but the most casual fans see through it. 

 

Also, this is definitely a Chris Ballard issue. He has a 38-39 year old Rivers at QB with a bust starter in Brissett also leaving. It's his issue to get us a franchise QB as the GM of the Colts with Luck gone, for better or for worse.

Huh?!?   Who is lying?   About what?    Ballard is as candid as any general manager in football.

 

Just because you misunderstood and came to a wrong conclusion that doesn’t mean Chris Ballard is lying.

 

Look, August of ‘19, and Luck shockingly retires.  Ballard basically says we can win with Jacoby Brissett.   He adds something like it’s not all about JB.  That the whole roster has to step up and play well.  That we will succeed or fail as a team.   That it won’t just be Jacoby’s fault or Jacoby’s success.  That it’s about the team.    All CB is trying to do is protect Jacoby from feeling like he has to be as good as Andrew Luck.  That he just needs to be himself and realize he’s surrounded by a good team.    That’s all.  Really. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Huh?!?   Who is lying?   About what?    Ballard is as candid as any general manager in football.

 

Just because you misunderstood and came to a wrong conclusion that doesn’t mean Chris Ballard is lying.

 

Look, August of ‘19, and Luck shockingly retires.  Ballard basically says we can win with Jacoby Brissett.   He adds something like it’s not all about JB.  That the whole roster has to step up and play well.  That we will succeed or fail as a team.   That it won’t just be Jacoby’s fault or Jacoby’s success.  That it’s about the team.    All CB is trying to do is protect Jacoby from feeling like he has to be as good as Andrew Luck.  That he just needs to be himself and realize he’s surrounded by a good team.    That’s all.  Really. 

Actually, read Shasta's comment about Ballard's introductory press conference above. I got the timeframe mixed up. My comment was originally correct, but Ballard made it in 2017 when he was the new GM instead of 2019 when Luck retired. It was still a bad comment in hindsight though, as now he looks dumb for saying that with Luck retired and an obvious hole at QB keeping us from contending for the SB. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, shasta519 said:


The quote was actually from his introductory press conference.


Here’s the quote:
 

"Alright, let me say this," Ballard said when asked about Andrew Luck, "because Andrew's a great player, but it will never be about one guy. It will never be about one guy. It's about all 53 men in that locker room, it's about all 63 men, including the practice squad, that we have. It will never be about one person. It will always be about the team. And is he a good piece? Absolutely. But he's just one of the 53 men that we have to go win with.”

 

He is emphasizing the team...and doesn’t explicitly say that QB isn’t the most important. However, that last line about his franchise QB (at the time) being just one of 53 players somewhat implies that he doesn’t place a premium on the position.

 

Of course it’s really easy to say these things when you have a franchise QB. Going forward...it IS all about finding that one guy. Ballard has said that he won’t force it...and I can respect that...but it is something that will need to happen sooner than later. 

You know that Ballard is NOT saying that quarterback isn’t the most important position in football.   He’s just emphasizing the team nature of football.   Bill Belichick had Tom Brady, but he always emphasized the team nature of the game. 
 

Everyone in football knows quarterback is the most important position in football.  The rules all favor passing.   It’s not exactly a state secret. 
 

A misunderstanding by a fan isn’t the problem of the GM.   It’s a fan’s issue. 
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Actually, read Shasta's comment about Ballard's introductory press conference above. I got the timeframe mixed up. My comment was originally correct, but Ballard made it in 2017 when he was the new GM instead of 2019 when Luck retired. It was still a bad comment in hindsight though, as now he looks dumb for saying that with Luck retired and an obvious hole at QB keeping us from contending for the SB. 

Jared your original comment was wrong.   The problem isn’t with Ballard.  

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

You know that Ballard is NOT saying that quarterback isn’t the most important position in football.   He’s just emphasizing the team nature of football.   Bill Belichick had Tom Brady, but he always emphasized the team nature of the game. 
 

Everyone in football knows quarterback is the most important position in football.  The rules all favor passing.   It’s not exactly a state secret. 
 

A misunderstanding by a fan isn’t the problem of the GM.   It’s a fan’s issue. 
 

 

Well... He said it was never about one guy (referring to Andrew Luck), and it was about the team (Luck retired). So he had to make it about the team with Luck gone and now that comment didn't age well at all. He may or may not have meant it that way, but that's what he said. Now, it's not about the team, it's about the QB. It was about Manning, it was about Luck. You need a team around them, but man did he word that poorly, and he looks bad because of that.

 

It's not about one person Ballard? I think you have changed your mind on that one now. It's certainly about building a team around that one person (the franchise QB), at the very least.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Well... He said it was never about one guy (referring to Andrew Luck), and it was about the team (Luck retired). So he had to make it about the team with Luck gone and now that comment didn't age well at all. He may or may not have meant it that way, but that's what he said. Now, it's not about the team, it's about the QB. It was about Manning, it was about Luck. You need a team around them, but man did he word that poorly, and he looks bad because of that.

 

It's not about one person Ballard? I think you have changed your mind on that one now. It's certainly about building a team around that one person (the franchise QB), at the very least.

He looks bad to whom? You?

When your agenda is to concentrate on what every negative issue you can dream up you talk this horse dung. 

You add your own narrative to what Ballard said and twisted it into a negative thing. 

Sorry Jared, that's on you. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Well... He said it was never about one guy (referring to Andrew Luck), and it was about the team (Luck retired). So he had to make it about the team with Luck gone and now that comment didn't age well at all. He may or may not have meant it that way, but that's what he said. Now, it's not about the team, it's about the QB. It was about Manning, it was about Luck. You need a team around them, but man did he word that poorly, and he looks bad because of that.

 

It's not about one person Ballard? I think you have changed your mind on that one now. It's certainly about building a team around that one person (the franchise QB), at the very least.

What do you mean, it didn't age well?   Maybe to you.    But the team nature of football is just as important,  just as relevent no matter who the quarterback is.     I'm not reveling some secret football truism.    The is Football 101.

 

Look how expensive all the trades are in the first round to move up and get a quarterback.   And not all the moves have panned out because only roughly 50 percent of 1st round quarterbacks turn into very good players.   The rest of them become ok or worse.    So, a team might give up a fortunate and end up back where they started.   Without a franchise quarterback.

 

Ballard is simply building up the team as best as he can while he tries to find the guy he's going to go with.   One would think you would be happy to only have Rivers for this year?   (Maybe next,  but it's short term)    One would think you'd be happy to be done with Brissett?     One would think you'd be happy to find out how good Eason is?    If he's good,  then we have a good QB for a 4th round pick.   Like Dallas did with Dak.   And if he doesn't pan out,  then Eason didn't cost us much and the search continues.

 

There's nothing about Ballard's comments that didn't age well.   It's all about you misunderstanding them.

 

I'm sorry,  but there it is.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

He looks bad to whom? You?

When your agenda is to concentrate on what every negative issue you can dream up you talk this horse dung. 

You add your own narrative to what Ballard said and twisted it into a negative thing. 

Sorry Jared, that's on you. 

Looks bad to anyone who pays attention to what he says. My agenda is 100% honesty, your agenda is 100% positivity even if that means throwing credibility out the window. I said Ballard was the best drafter since 2018 in the league. Sorry that's not "positive" enough for your extreme bias. Also, it's on Ballard. He was cocky and said it wasn't about one player when he had a top 5 QB on his team like it wouldn't matter. 2 years later, he loses him and has to backup his words about it being a team sport. Now, he looks really dumb for it since he's been proven false. That's on Ballard. It's too bad this Colts media is a bunch of cowards and doesn't lay the pressure on him with that statement.

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

What do you mean, it didn't age well?   Maybe to you.    But the team nature of football is just as important,  just as relevent no matter who the quarterback is.     I'm not reveling some secret football truism.    The is Football 101.

 

Look how expensive all the trades are in the first round to move up and get a quarterback.   And not all the moves have panned out because only roughly 50 percent of 1st round quarterbacks turn into very good players.   The rest of them become ok or worse.    So, a team might give up a fortunate and end up back where they started.   Without a franchise quarterback.

 

Ballard is simply building up the team as best as he can while he tries to find the guy he's going to go with.   One would think you would be happy to only have Rivers for this year?   (Maybe next,  but it's short term)    One would think you'd be happy to be done with Brissett?     One would think you'd be happy to find out how good Eason is?    If he's good,  then we have a good QB for a 4th round pick.   Like Dallas did with Dak.   And if he doesn't pan out,  then Eason didn't cost us much and the search continues.

 

There's nothing about Ballard's comments that didn't age well.   It's all about you misunderstanding them.

 

I'm sorry,  but there it is.

 

Nothing gives me confidence Eason will even see the field as a Colt with the way Ballard and Reich handled Kelly. Ballard can't keep putting band-aids on this teams forever. Yes, it's a risk to trade up for a QB, and it's a unfair situation for him, but you have to play the cards you're given. That's just how it is. If Irsay understands that Luck leaving was unfortunate and bad luck, he should have no issue giving up draft capital to get a franchise QB. Irsay knows more than anyone how important one is.

 

In any case, Ballard can't stall forever. These mediocre seasons will keep happening as long as we don't have a young, franchise QB that can grow. That's another thing, the longer we take to draft a franchise QB, the longer he'll take to grow from being a rookie into a good QB. I don't trust we'll use Eason until it happens, so I'm expecting either Rivers or Brissett back, or a possible franchise QB from the draft. Ballard got bit on the butt on this one, basically was cocky about it being a team game and not about one player when he had Luck, now he has to prove that statement without Luck, and he knows it's not true.

 

It's just too bad none of the fans or the media remember this from his introductory press conference to put some heat on him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Looks bad to anyone who pays attention to what he says. My agenda is 100% honesty, your agenda is 100% positivity even if that means throwing credibility out the window. I said Ballard was the best drafter since 2018 in the league. Sorry that's not "positive" enough for your extreme bias. Also, it's on Ballard. He was cocky and said it wasn't about one player when he had a top 5 QB on his team like it wouldn't matter. 2 years later, he loses him and has to backup his words about it being a team sport. Now, he looks really dumb for it since he's been proven false. That's on Ballard. It's too bad this Colts media is a bunch of cowards and doesn't lay the pressure on him with that statement.

Calling him dumb because he has had a hard time replacing Luck is what? 

You are the classic example of over reaction. 

 

 

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

Calling him dumb because he has had a hard time replacing Luck is what? 

You are the classic example of over reaction. 

 

 

Way to twist words, you are the king of that. He's dumb because he made the statement that it's not about one player and it's about a team when he had Luck. Fast forward 2 years, he loses Luck, and has to prove it's not about one player and about the team and we completely wet the bed because of it. That's why he's dumb there.

 

I'm not over-reacting, I'm holding him to his word, which nobody seems to do in Indianapolis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Way to twist words, you are the king of that. He's dumb because he made the statement that it's not about one player and it's about a team when he had Luck. Fast forward 2 years, he loses Luck, and has to prove it's not about one player and about the team and we completely wet the bed because of it. That's why he's dumb there.

 

I'm not over-reacting, I'm holding him to his word, which nobody seems to do in Indianapolis.

You are holding him to his word in a narrative of wanting to point a finger when there is nothing to point at. 

You sound like a politician. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Nothing gives me confidence Eason will even see the field as a Colt with the way Ballard and Reich handled Kelly. Ballard can't keep putting band-aids on this teams forever. Yes, it's a risk to trade up for a QB, and it's a unfair situation for him, but you have to play the cards you're given. That's just how it is. If Irsay understands that Luck leaving was unfortunate and bad luck, he should have no issue giving up draft capital to get a franchise QB. Irsay knows more than anyone how important one is.

 

In any case, Ballard can't stall forever. These mediocre seasons will keep happening as long as we don't have a young, franchise QB that can grow. That's another thing, the longer we take to draft a franchise QB, the longer he'll take to grow from being a rookie into a good QB. I don't trust we'll use Eason until it happens, so I'm expecting either Rivers or Brissett back, or a possible franchise QB from the draft. Ballard got bit on the butt on this one, basically was cocky about it being a team game and not about one player when he had Luck, now he has to prove that statement without Luck, and he knows it's not true.

 

It's just too bad none of the fans or the media remember this from his introductory press conference to put some heat on him.

 

The way they handled Kelly?    The same Chad Kelly who was cut about three weeks ago and has YET TO BE SIGNED BY ANY OTHER NFL TEAM?     Ya think maybe you're the one who has misread that situation?     If he's so good, wouldn't another team have signed him by now?      If he was so abused,  wouldn't his agent have asked for his release?    Maybe Kelly asked for his release because he could see how Eason looks?

 

As for Eason....   yes,  there's no promise that Eason will turn out to be The Man.   But we might get a season to find out.

 

And Ballard is NOT stalling!   But you are famously inpatient.  

 

As for "Ballard can't keep putting band-aids on this team forever..."     What is forever?    Brissett lasted one year.    Rivers is a year or two -- and that's likely it.  We're not even 1.5 years post Andrew Luck.    All Ballard is doing is trying to win as best as he can for right now,  while still keeping options open in the future.   Doesn't that sound reasonable?    We're not blocked from making any move Ballard might want this off-season.     He could make a trade for a player.    He could trade up in the draft.    He could sign a different free agent.    There are lots of possibilities and whoever the 2021 quarterback turns out to be,  odds are he will be surrounded by a very good team,  a playoff caliber team.

 

As a fan, what more could you ask for?

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

You are holding him to his word in a narrative of wanting to point a finger when there is nothing to point at. 

You sound like a politician. 

The first thing Ballard did when he got here in is introductory press-conference is basically downplay Luck by saying it's not about one person and it's about 53 guys, a team sport. His words. When Luck retired, he got a chance to prove that theory right, and it failed. Not only did he downplay Luck, but he made himself look dumb with his "53 man equality" speech in the process. He didn't fool anyone but casual fans.

 

Like I said, it's just too bad nobody important remembers this or he'd get major heat for it right now. Ballard is lucky.

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

 

This is true, but Ballard took the job expecting that the QB situation wasn't a factor -- just like everyone else. In fact, having Luck was considered the biggest selling point for the Colts GM job. Fast forward to September 2019, and the team that Ballard was building around Luck suddenly didn't have Luck anymore. 

 

Out of four offseasons, only this last one was undertaken with the understanding that we did not have a franchise QB. It's a major adjustment, and it came out of nowhere.

 

We'll see how this year winds up, but so far, Ballard has been thrown some serious curve balls. 

 

Talking about Ballard's scouting and team building is one thing. But focusing on record and team trajectory is another, and it's pointless to do so without acknowledging the turbulence over the last three seasons.


That’s fair...and I will acknowledge that Luck retiring was not ideal...but people position it as the Great Disadvantage that Ballard has overcome. The problem I have with that narrative is that (a) having a franchise QB in place was a huge advantage few GMs have had...and (b) he hasn’t actually overcome anything yet.


I am not in any way saying he won’t...because (like you said) it was only last September and because he is a  smart GM...I am just being fair. Toss out 2017 and the Colts have been a .500 team without Luck...and currently have a 4th round pick as their starting QB next year. The trajectory of the rest of the team is good...but it definitely remains to be seen if this team will have sustained success at QB position or as a team. 
 

Ballard might have taken the job because of Luck...but when he was hired...one of the first things he said was an emphasis on the “team” aspect and how it’s not about one guy. He said Luck was a good player...but just one of 53. In his own words...he wasn’t even building around Luck...he was building a team that had Luck on it. 

 

And he was able to do that because of Luck being here. I am not telling you anything you don’t know...but this is something that doesn’t get acknowledged here very often. Part of the huge advantage of having a QB in place was that Ballard was able to focus his efforts and (more importantly) his resources on building up other positions...including a #6 overall pick and SIX 2nd round picks over the first 3 drafts of his tenure. That is an incredible amount of draft capital. It’s to Ballard’s credit that he was able to take advantage of poorly-run and QB-needy organization to get some of those picks...but my point is that he has had more draft resources than most teams and that he hasn’t had to use any of those draft resources (until this year) on QB...like many new GMs have to do...like Grigs had to do. 

 

Luck retiring was a curve ball...but Ballard has had his share of belt-high FBs as well. I just don’t see this new task for Ballard as a unique challenge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Way to twist words, you are the king of that. He's dumb because he made the statement that it's not about one player and it's about a team when he had Luck. Fast forward 2 years, he loses Luck, and has to prove it's not about one player and about the team and we completely wet the bed because of it. That's why he's dumb there.

 

I'm not over-reacting, I'm holding him to his word, which nobody seems to do in Indianapolis.

 

You've made a series of spectacular misunderstandings.   His comment about football being a team game is what almost all good GM's and Head Coaches say.    You don't want players thinking the franchise quarterback will always bail them out.  Ballard wants every player to play their best at all times.   He thinks his 53 man roster is better than the roster of most other teams.

 

Jared,  you're famous for over-reacting.   You think no one holds people accountable because you're so wildly inpatient.  Ballard has an incredibly good reputation in the NFL community for a reason.   He's a real pro.   That's why agents voted him the #1 GM to deal with.   You need to be patient and you need to stop jumping to crazy conclusions.    Calm down.   Keep your powder dry.    There are better days ahead.    I'd rather be a Colts fan than the fan of most other teams in the NFL.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The first thing Ballard did when he got here in is introductory press-conference is basically downplay Luck by saying it's not about one person and it's about 53 guys, a team sport. His words. When Luck retired, he got a chance to prove that theory right, and it failed. Not only did he downplay Luck, but he made himself look dumb with his "53 man equality" speech in the process. He didn't fool anyone but casual fans.

 

Like I said, it's just too bad nobody important remembers this or he'd get major heat for it right now. Ballard is lucky.

You took standard coach/GM speak and now are making an issue out of a non issue. 

Just stop. You are barking up a dead tree. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, shasta519 said:


That’s fair...and I will acknowledge that Luck retiring was not ideal...but people position it as the Great Disadvantage that Ballard has overcome. The problem I have with that narrative is that (a) having a franchise QB in place was a huge advantage few GMs have had...and (b) he hasn’t actually overcome anything yet.


I am not in any way saying he won’t...because (like you said) it was only last September and because he is a  smart GM...I am just being fair. Toss out 2017 and the Colts have been a .500 team without Luck...and currently have a 4th round pick as their starting QB next year. The trajectory of the rest of the team is good...but it definitely remains to be seen if this team will have sustained success at QB position or as a team. 
 

Ballard might have taken the job because of Luck...but when he was hired...one of the first things he said was an emphasis on the “team” aspect and how it’s not about one guy. He said Luck was a good player...but just one of 53. In his own words...he wasn’t even building around Luck...he was building a team that had Luck on it. 

 

And he was able to do that because of Luck being here. I am not telling you anything you don’t know...but this is something that doesn’t get acknowledged here very often. Part of the huge advantage of having a QB in place was that Ballard was able to focus his efforts and (more importantly) his resources on building up other positions...including a #6 overall pick and SIX 2nd round picks over the first 3 drafts of his tenure. That is an incredible amount of draft capital. It’s to Ballard’s credit that he was able to take advantage of poorly-run and QB-needy organization to get some of those picks...but my point is that he has had more draft resources than most teams and that he hasn’t had to use any of those draft resources (until this year) on QB...like many new GMs have to do...like Grigs had to do. 

 

Luck retiring was a curve ball...but Ballard has had his share of belt-high FBs as well. I just don’t see this new task for Ballard as a unique challenge. 

OK....    I'll bite.   What were "his share of belt-high Fast Balls" that apparently you think Ballard didn't swing at,  or he watched the go by for a called strike?    What am I not following about your argument?

 

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

 

The way they handled Kelly?    The same Chad Kelly who was cut about three weeks ago and has YET TO BE SIGNED BY ANY OTHER NFL TEAM?     Ya think maybe you're the one who has misread that situation?     If he's so good, wouldn't another team have signed him by now?      If he was so abused,  wouldn't his agent have asked for his release?    Maybe Kelly asked for his release because he could see how Eason looks?

 

As for Eason....   yes,  there's no promise that Eason will turn out to be The Man.   But we might get a season to find out.

 

As for "Ballard can't keep putting band-aids on this team forever..."     What is forever?    Brissett lasted one year.    Rivers is a year or two -- and that's likely it.    All Ballard is doing is trying to win as best as he can for right now,  while still keeping options open in the future.   Doesn't that sound reasonable?    We're not blocked from making any move Ballard might want this off-season.     He could make a trade for a player.    He could trade up in the draft.    He could sign a different free agent.    There are lots of possibilities and whoever the 2021 quarterback turns out to be,  odds are he will be surrounded by a very good team,  a playoff caliber team.

 

As a fan, what more could you ask for?

 

No one signed Kelly yes, but what makes you think we'll use Eason at all? Certainly not this year. Next year, he'll be the only QB under contract, and Ballard won't trust him to start without any playing experience. We'll either sign a FA QB, or draft someone else, or god forbid, re-sign Rivers or Brissett. There is always a correct move in any case. You can say I'm using hindsight (and I am), but isn't that why we trust the GMs? Isn't that why we are the armchair GMs? Obviously, we weren't getting Burrow, we could of traded up 8 spots for Herbert. We could of signed Bridgewater to a multi-year deal. He's doing very well and a relatively young QB. These would of been the right moves. Ballard is supposed to make these moves. He signed Rivers (knowing he was 38) as a band-aid. Putting off the future. 

 

Ballard could do anything that's reasonably possible. However, he doesn't like to trade up early in drafts. Quite the opposite. He could sign a different FA. However, he is generally cheap in FA. We are going to have to pay the 2018 draft at some point here, and that will limit our cap quite a bit. Ballard needs to make a decision on the QB and quit putting it off. 

 

Another thing you aren't taking into account is Ballard may not have as much job security as you think. The longer we have mediocre seasons and don't get anywhere, the more frustrated Irsay will be. Ballard isn't untouchable. He has to show he is willing to do something and take a risk, for better or for worse. He can't keep getting away with being the "conservative GM" and trying to compete for a SB. It just won't happen like that.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The first thing Ballard did when he got here in is introductory press-conference is basically downplay Luck by saying it's not about one person and it's about 53 guys, a team sport. His words. When Luck retired, he got a chance to prove that theory right, and it failed. Not only did he downplay Luck, but he made himself look dumb with his "53 man equality" speech in the process. He didn't fool anyone but casual fans.

 

Like I said, it's just too bad nobody important remembers this or he'd get major heat for it right now. Ballard is lucky.

He said that because he was trying to make the whole team feel just as important as Luck, that is called being a team. That is what great GM's do. Losing Luck hurt but so far Rivers is 4-2 so lets see what happens bro. The only loss that bothers me is the Jags game, crap happens. I had a bad feeling about the Browns game and crap did happen lmao . If we beat the Lions and get to 5-2, no way we miss the playoffs with Rivers. :thmup:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Alright, I'm out of this conversation. Nobody likes an analyst that breaks things down. If you guys want to believe Ballard is the "messiah", go ahead. I like him, but I don't worship him as @EastStreet would say. 

 

Thanks for the bro talk @2006Coltsbestever!

 

 

I don't put Ballard on mountain but losing Luck was a bad blow. If you are a GM and lose a QB like that, that is bad.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

No one signed Kelly yes, but what makes you think we'll use Eason at all? Certainly not this year. Next year, he'll be the only QB under contract, and Ballard won't trust him to start without any playing experience. We'll either sign a FA QB, or draft someone else, or god forbid, re-sign Rivers or Brissett. There is always a correct move in any case. You can say I'm using hindsight (and I am), but isn't that why we trust the GMs? Isn't that why we are the armchair GMs? Obviously, we weren't getting Burrow, we could of traded up 8 spots for Herbert. We could of signed Bridgewater to a multi-year deal. He's doing very well and a relatively young QB. These would of been the right moves. Ballard is supposed to make these moves. He signed Rivers (knowing he was 38) as a band-aid. Putting off the future. 

 

Ballard could do anything that's reasonably possible. However, he doesn't like to trade up early in drafts. Quite the opposite. He could sign a different FA. However, he is generally cheap in FA. We are going to have to pay the 2018 draft at some point here, and that will limit our cap quite a bit. Ballard needs to make a decision on the QB and quit putting it off. 

 

Another thing you aren't taking into account is Ballard may not have as much job security as you think. The longer we have mediocre seasons and don't get anywhere, the more frustrated Irsay will be. Ballard isn't untouchable. He has to show he is willing to do something and take a risk, for better or for worse. He can't keep getting away with being the "conservative GM" and trying to compete for a SB. It just won't happen like that.

 

All you're doing now Jared is projecting.    You're taking your views and putting them on Ballard and Irsay.    Ballard always keeps Irsay in the loop.   Nothing Ballard has done has caught Irsay off guard.   As long as Ballard is competitive and spending wisely,  Irsay will likely be fine with him.   Irsay knows Ballard inherited a mess.   Irsay knows Ballard was going to need time,  especially after he asked CB to keep Pagano and his staff around for another year.  Unless something shocking comes up unexpectedly,  Ballard should have Irsays complete faith and patience.   

 

As I layed out in my last post,  Ballard has all these options.   As a fan one would think you'd be excited.   You've shared that you like Ballard and think he drafts well.   He's not too bad at free agency either.   But instead of being excited over possibilities you see all the downside.   You see all the ways this could go south.   You worry and worry and worry some more.   I've run out of magic words to try and have you see the bright side....

 

Good luck....

 

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

No one signed Kelly yes, but what makes you think we'll use Eason at all? Certainly not this year. Next year, he'll be the only QB under contract, and Ballard won't trust him to start without any playing experience. We'll either sign a FA QB, or draft someone else, or god forbid, re-sign Rivers or Brissett. There is always a correct move in any case. You can say I'm using hindsight (and I am), but isn't that why we trust the GMs? Isn't that why we are the armchair GMs? Obviously, we weren't getting Burrow, we could of traded up 8 spots for Herbert. We could of signed Bridgewater to a multi-year deal. He's doing very well and a relatively young QB. These would of been the right moves. Ballard is supposed to make these moves. He signed Rivers (knowing he was 38) as a band-aid. Putting off the future. 

 

Ballard could do anything that's reasonably possible. However, he doesn't like to trade up early in drafts. Quite the opposite. He could sign a different FA. However, he is generally cheap in FA. We are going to have to pay the 2018 draft at some point here, and that will limit our cap quite a bit. Ballard needs to make a decision on the QB and quit putting it off. 

 

Another thing you aren't taking into account is Ballard may not have as much job security as you think. The longer we have mediocre seasons and don't get anywhere, the more frustrated Irsay will be. Ballard isn't untouchable. He has to show he is willing to do something and take a risk, for better or for worse. He can't keep getting away with being the "conservative GM" and trying to compete for a SB. It just won't happen like that.

There's no telling what it would have cost to trade up for Herbert most likely 21' 1st and more. 

 

I am just glad Ballard realized this and realized the talent at 13 and beyond wasn't much to be excited so he made the trade for Buckner. 

 

I'm glad Herbert is succeeding but it doesn't change my views on Ballard. 

 

He made a fantastic trade for the better of the team and guess what... it helped.

 

We still have a 21' 1 and could possibly improve team again.

 

There's always hope just keep your head up buddy

6 minutes ago, Behle said:

I believe Houston has a franchise quarterback. Seems like he could use a team around him. 

Why did Bill have to leave?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

This is true, but Ballard took the job expecting that the QB situation wasn't a factor -- just like everyone else. In fact, having Luck was considered the biggest selling point for the Colts GM job. Fast forward to September 2019, and the team that Ballard was building around Luck suddenly didn't have Luck anymore. 

 

Out of four offseasons, only this last one was undertaken with the understanding that we did not have a franchise QB. It's a major adjustment, and it came out of nowhere.

 

We'll see how this year winds up, but so far, Ballard has been thrown some serious curve balls. 

 

Talking about Ballard's scouting and team building is one thing. But focusing on record and team trajectory is another, and it's pointless to do so without acknowledging the turbulence over the last three seasons.

Well, this is true of course. But it's also true that it still ultimately rests on his shoulds - fair or unfair. I think it's totally okay to give him a sort of pass for a year, or even a few years. But at some point...

 

Hope Eason is the guy, but I wasn't a huge fan pre-draft. We'll see how it goes, though. Still, we traded our first and I think it's fair to assume that's because Ballard didn't see any value in moving up or at least taking a QB in the first (or maybe he just saw more value in Buckner?). Burrow was probably out of reach but Herbert was within range and he's stolen the job in San Diego.

 

Dude's had to deal with a ton of curveballs as you said. Rivers was a fine stopgap, I suppose. But at the same time, gotta have a long-term solution and he might have missed an opportunity. Gonna have to "put a pin in it" for now.

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.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Correct. And we need to win that game because if we lose, it is highly unlikely we win the last 5, but I think it is likely they win at least 3 since they play Hou. Jax and a floundering Det.  And they may even be favored against Cle.  That leaves GB for them to upset to sweep into the playoffs and could make it very tough for us to get in at all with our tie breaker status.  This is the more important than any further game this season.  Win and our path to the playoffs is so much more wide open.  But we will still likely need to win at least 3 games to get in unless TN craters somehow.  Those tiebreakers are really going to challenge us in wildcard scenarios.    I could see Hou winning one against us, they usually do and they are on a major upswing.  Their offense is no joke and they do not depend at all on the run so our run defense is less effective obviously.  Pitt and the Raiders are also no joke and both games are away.  This is a critical one if we hope to win the division. If we lose, finishing 9-7 is realistically still in play and I don't see TN losing 3 out of 5.  In fact, I don't see them losing more than 2 of 5.  If we win they'll likely have to win 4 of 5 or sweep to catch us for the division.  I called the Raiders game as being key to make the playoffs and go 10-6 before the season started. With a loss, the desperate WC tie breaker situation, that is especially true.  It's possible for a 10-6 team to miss the playoffs even with the extra team.  Cleveland will almost surely get 10 wins with their easy finish.  Baltimore is also likely.  (Their divisional matchups are really favorable this time around).  Then again maybe we'll sweep the season and get the #1 seed.  Pitt still has to play 5 current playoff teams in their final 6 and KC has to play 3.     Just speculation as always, but that is the fun of a football message board.  Go Colts!
    • ^This^   Another way to look at it is this:  considering the production that Ballard is getting out of his draft picks while they're still on their rookie contracts... why over-spend on re-signing anybody?   If Ballard can continue hitting on draft picks the way he has, then it's almost better to just keep accumulating draft picks, draft well, and let the young guys go out and make plays.   Let other teams over-spend on proven talent while Indy keeps providing an opportunity for young hungry players to prove their talent.   Save the money for slam-dunk moves like Buckner.
    • I bet you are 1000% wrong.   Nelson is the biggest name in the league at G, and it's not even close.  A "bad" Nelson (that gets called for ticky-tack holds that happen on every single NFL play) is still better than 90% of the guards in the NFL.   Your hot-take posts are getting very tiresome.  
    • They have contributed as much their rookie year as the entire group maybe by end of the season, but I doubt there's even a tiny chance of 2 all pros. Even 1 is a major stretch.  I am not sure we have any all pro's on the team since the most deserving one is Buckner (who I count as our first round pick in every way) has impact but no stats to wow anyone not intimately aware of his impact. If he misses this game we may painfully see how valuable.  But their collective impact has certainly added up. 4 starters and 2 solid special teamers in a so far playoff level team is quite a haul for any draft pick class in history.  It is at least adjacent to 2018, unless you don't count Buckner in any way.
    • Nothing against you and I like you as a poster but counting Ballard's 2017 season is a stretch. I realize he was the GM that year (1st year) but he didn't have the Coach he wanted and Luck was out for the year. We went 4-12 that year so his record is a bit skewed because of that. Others have posted the same thing about Ballard's record so you are not the only one and I just don't see how anyone can count that season legitimately. I pretty much go by 2018-this year when he hired Frank and his record would be 25-19 counting the playoffs. Is he the best GM in the league, probably not but he is good. He is responsible for drafting Nelson, Leonard, Mack, signing Houston, signing Rivers and trading for Buckner = great work there. Luck just retiring on the team and McDaniels dissing him even made his job that much harder. 
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...