Chris Ballard

[Myles 3,914]

Imagine the outcry if Ballard would have said - This team is all about 1 guy and that is Luck.   It doesn't matter what we put around him because it's all about luck.

[Jared Cisneros 3,768]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

Imagine the outcry if Ballard would have said - This team is all about 1 guy and that is Luck.   It doesn't matter what we put around him because it's all about luck.

Or how about, "the QB is the most important player on the team, and we will do whatever we can to protect him and build around him in order to give ourselves the best chance to win the SB." Would that of been so hard?

[coltfaninnewyork 676]

Ballard doing great job overall,losing luck the way we lost him was devastating.He will get us there eventually but luck was quite a setback ,obviously.

[luv_pony_express 437]

In today’s NFL, it’s almost impossible to be a championship caliber team without a top 10 QB.  Of course it’s not the only position that matters.  They all matter.  But, better or worse, the game has become so much about the ability to move the ball in large chunks.  And not all QBs can make that happen as well as the game requires.

 

And getting a QB of that caliber is hard.  And I would argue that it even involves some measure of good luck - like a 6th round pick out of Michigan ending up with 6 rings...or a guy like Mahomes falling to where he did in the draft.

 

Even getting one of the top picks while needing a QB is far from a guarantee.

 

Every team that doesn’t already have one of them is trying to do the same thing.  And some high percentage of the top prospects don’t ever make it into that echelon.

[lollygagger8 3,282]

I feel Ballard has done a great job building this team's trenches. Now it's time to spend more capital on skill positions. 

WR has been a sore spot on this team for way too long (since Reggie) but Ballard can't control all the injuries.

DE has also been pretty bad (outside of Houston). He needs to figure that out quick. 

 

Luck quitting out of nowhere really screwed this team, and even though I don't care for who he replaced that void with, Ballard put his head down and dealt with it. I also was not a fan of giving Brisket that much money, but hey I'm not the GM. 

 

Or when you hire a head coach and they also quit on you at the last minute, he handled that like a champ as well. 

 

 

 

[DougDew 2,270]

4 hours 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.

Having eavesdropped into your conversation with NCF, I agree with you, but I think you stated it a bit dramatically by saying that he said the QB position is not the most important.  Let me try to clean that up.

 

I think at that presser, he was laying out a philosophy that said that he is going to build the team differently than maybe what we've had the past 20 years, where the team was built around the skills of one guy PM then Luck.  He was explaining to the fans the difference between what the fans would see going forward and what they have seen in the past.

 

I strongly believed that he meant that.  That you can win by building a complete team around QBs like Tannehill, Wentz, maybe Foles (who is still posting a winning record at CHI despite the consistent criticism) and your salary cap and roster won't be hamstrung by one guy.....so your team doesn't fall apart when that one guy has a freak neck injury (or decides to quit mid contract).

 

Supported by the observation that Ballard was not as choked up by Luck leaving...at least not seemingly as eager to see him come back as Irsay and some fans....so that tends to corroborate the notion that he truly believes that a winning football team is not about one guy...which....would be the QB.

 

But I'm sure if he ranked the most important positions on a football team, he would list QB #1.

[Jared Cisneros 3,768]

6 minutes ago, luv_pony_express said:

In today’s NFL, it’s almost impossible to be a championship caliber team without a top 10 QB.  Of course it’s not the only position that matters.  They all matter.  But, better or worse, the game has become so much about the ability to move the ball in large chunks.  And not all QBs can make that happen as well as the game requires.

 

And getting a QB of that caliber is hard.  And I would argue that it even involves some measure of good luck - like a 6th round pick out of Michigan ending up with 6 rings...or a guy like Mahomes falling to where he did in the draft.

 

Even getting one of the top picks while needing a QB is far from a guarantee.

 

Every team that doesn’t already have one of them is trying to do the same thing.  And some high percentage of the top prospects don’t ever make it into that echelon.

Mahomes definitely didn't fall in the 2017 draft. He was considered a late 1st-round pick when the draft happened and the Chiefs moved up to 10 to take him. He was projected behind Watson and Trubisky and was a high risk/high reward QB.

 

I said this earlier in the thread. We're supposed to trust the GMs to make this decision. That's why they are on pro teams and we are armchair GMs discussing it on here and playing Madden. If Ballard can't figure out a decision on what to do for our QB, then someone else needs to help him. He could of traded up for Herbert or signed Bridgewater to a multi-year deal, he did neither. Tua may end up working out as well which was possible. There are always correct decisions every year for the QB position that work out for a few teams. It's up to Ballard to figure them out as GM and execute one of them for the Colts. Otherwise, make me GM, I'm 33 and have 18 years on Ballard to make this team under my image. I'll keep all of Ballards scouts and be a risk taker. We'll either get our QB or not. I'm kidding, of course, but you see my point.

[Myles 3,914]

36 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Or how about, "the QB is the most important player on the team, and we will do whatever we can to protect him and build around him in order to give ourselves the best chance to win the SB." Would that of been so hard?

I don't think it matters.   I understand why he said what he said.  When he took over, this team was so thin at every position that he had to focus on every position except the QB.   He fixed the O-line quickly.  

[luv_pony_express 437]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Mahomes definitely didn't fall in the 2017 draft. He was considered a late 1st-round pick when the draft happened and the Chiefs moved up to 10 to take him. He was projected behind Watson and Trubisky and was a high risk/high reward QB.

 

Yeah, that was a poor word choice on my part.  I didn't mean to suggest that he was projected high and fell.  I just meant to say that he went lower than he would on a redraft.  My point is that the projections of him being behind Trubisky and Watson were obviously a blessing of chance for the Chiefs.

 

Quote

I said this earlier in the thread. We're supposed to trust the GMs to make this decision. That's why they are on pro teams and we are armchair GMs discussing it on here and playing Madden.

 

Of course.  There's a reason they call it Fantasy Football.  Being a GM is a heckuva lot easier in a fantasy world than it is in the real one -- where you have to deal with all kinds of limitations, tradeoffs, contingencies, pressures, etc.  And I have complete faith in Chris Ballard.

 

I didn't intend to be critical of CB in any way.  I was simply trying to say that the quarterback position is the most critical one on the roster and often the hardest problem to solve.  Teams have gone decades trying to find the right guy.  And it's not because the front office staff they had was incompetent or anything.  It's just that hard -- and, yeah, I think it involves some luck.

 

I don't think anybody can say what the future holds for us at that position.  I realize it's going to involve trial and error -- in fact, it already has.  And I have faith that Ballard will make the best moves he can make.

[Superman 8,331]

14 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

Lets say Parris comes back 100% and starts fantastic in 21' but gets hurt again.

 

At what point do we say we gotta move on...

 

I don't know if that question is even worth considering. It seems pretty obvious to me that they're still looking for the right receivers. If Campbell can't perform again next year -- for whatever reason -- they'll move on. They should probably be working on backup plans for him already.

[chad72 6,474]

56 minutes ago, luv_pony_express said:

 

I don't think anybody can say what the future holds for us at that position.  I realize it's going to involve trial and error -- in fact, it already has.  And I have faith that Ballard will make the best moves he can make.

 

The question is, are draft picks valuable beyond a point when you are closer to knocking on the door of a SB? Look at what the Eagles and Rams gave up for Wentz and Goff. Ballard, the only time he involved a first rounder in a trade was for a proven commodity, obviously a no brainer since he knew the history and production of the player involved. But to get a QB that is not a proven commodity, you have to take risks. 

 

Would you then give up 2nd and/or 3rd rounders for other proven marquee players if you feel they can help your team? That is what the Seahawks did - give up a Frank Clark to gain picks and not re-sign Clowney, and then clear out cap space to pay RW and then put more on RW's shoulders, and fill in the gaps to support him and build their O and D again. The Rams are not shy in trading up or down or trading for players they feel can improve their team. If you don't have draft picks, manipulate the cap. 

 

Outside Ryan Kelly and Nelson, and maybe Leonard, name one player that a team would give up a 1st or 2nd rounder for on our team? Maybe Ballard does not believe we are on the cusp of SB contention that he does not want to mortgage our picks with any kind of risks unless it is a proven commodity, that is my only theory. Otherwise, I would be aggressive with our Draft Day 2 picks if I could.

[Jared Cisneros 3,768]

4 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

The question is, are draft picks valuable beyond a point when you are closer to knocking on the door of a SB? Look at what the Eagles and Rams gave up for Wentz and Goff. Ballard, the only time he involved a first rounder in a trade was for a proven commodity, obviously a no brainer since he knew the history and production of the player involved. But to get a QB that is not a proven commodity, you have to take risks. 

 

Would you then give up 2nd and/or 3rd rounders for other proven marquee players if you feel they can help your team? That is what the Seahawks did - give up a Frank Clark to gain picks and not re-sign Clowney, and then clear out cap space to pay RW and then put more on RW's shoulders, and fill in the gaps to support him and build their O and D again. The Rams are not shy in trading up or down or trading for players they feel can improve their team. If you don't have draft picks, manipulate the cap. 

 

Outside Leonard, maybe Ryan Kelly and Nelson, name one player that a team would give up a 1st or 2nd rounder for on our team? Maybe Ballard does not believe we are on the cusp of SB contention that he does not want to mortgage our picks, that is my only theory. Otherwise, I would be aggressive with our Draft Day 2 picks if I could.

This is a good theory. I would say Nelson, Leonard, and Buckner are our truly elite players, and you might add Ryan Kelly to that. However, there is another side to that that teams don't have a team full of pro bowlers and there are a lot of role players to supplement those elite players. In our case, we have so many good players with our handful of elite ones that it may come down to not being to pay all these guys and having to release some of them before getting our franchise QB? Maybe that's why Ballard signed Rivers?

 

I don't know, but we need a young QB that has a chance to be our franchise guy at some point. If it's Eason, be sure to start him next year then. These contracts are creeping on us.

[GoColts8818 4,257]

9 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

The question is, are draft picks valuable beyond a point when you are closer to knocking on the door of a SB? Look at what the Eagles and Rams gave up for Wentz and Goff. Ballard, the only time he involved a first rounder in a trade was for a proven commodity, obviously a no brainer since he knew the history and production of the player involved. But to get a QB that is not a proven commodity, you have to take risks. 

 

Would you then give up 2nd and/or 3rd rounders for other proven marquee players if you feel they can help your team? That is what the Seahawks did - give up a Frank Clark to gain picks and not re-sign Clowney, and then clear out cap space to pay RW and then put more on RW's shoulders, and fill in the gaps to support him and build their O and D again. The Rams are not shy in trading up or down or trading for players they feel can improve their team. If you don't have draft picks, manipulate the cap. 

 

Outside Ryan Kelly and Nelson, and maybe Leonard, name one player that a team would give up a 1st or 2nd rounder for on our team? Maybe Ballard does not believe we are on the cusp of SB contention that he does not want to mortgage our picks with any kind of risks unless it is a proven commodity, that is my only theory. Otherwise, I would be aggressive with our Draft Day 2 picks if I could.

Buckner. Still your overall point stands.  
 

Ballard isn’t going to mortgage the future.  He’s a believer in building through the draft and you don’t do that if you are trading away your picks all the time for players.  
 

I know the Eagles won a Super Bowl but look at them now that team is a train wreck being saved by the fact they are in a train wreck division.  You can’t tell me trading away all those picks didn’t have something to do with it.  

[Korey 64]

Just now, GoColts8818 said:

Buckner. Still your overall point stands.  
 

Ballard isn’t going to mortgage the future.  He’s a believer in building through the draft and you don’t do that if you are trading away your picks all the time for players.  
 

I know the Eagles won a Super Bowl but look at them now that team is a train wreck being saved by the fact they are in a train wreck division.  You can’t tell me trading away all those picks didn’t have something to do with it.  

 

Give me a super bowl like the Eagles then I can have a few seasons of a train wreck. 

[chad72 6,474]

2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

This is a good theory. I would say Nelson, Leonard, and Buckner are our truly elite players, and you might add Ryan Kelly to that. However, there is another side to that that teams don't have a team full of pro bowlers and there are a lot of role players to supplement those elite players. In our case, we have so many good players with our handful of elite ones that it may come down to not being to pay all these guys and having to release some of them before getting our franchise QB? Maybe that's why Ballard signed Rivers?

 

I don't know, but we need a young QB that has a chance to be our franchise guy at some point. If it's Eason, be sure to start him next year then. These contracts are creeping on us.

 

You pay the elite players and make them part of your core but if the QB becomes part of your core, that affects the rest. It also means your window with those elite players might be the next 2-3 years like the Cowboys O-line, can't stay dominant and healthy while playing at that high level for long. So, you maximize the window with free agency additions while not losing sight of the fact that the franchise QB may not intersect with the prime of the OL, Buckner and Leonard. 

[GoColts8818 4,257]

2 minutes ago, Korey said:

 

Give me a super bowl like the Eagles then I can have a few seasons of a train wreck. 

You say that now but when the Colts won the Super Bowl with Peyton all a lot of fans did was whine that they didn’t win more.  Fans always want more.  
 

Also let’s not forget they won that Super Bowl with Foles.  Would they have won it had he been the starter all year?  I don’t know but you could argue that they might have in which case the Wentz trade looks worse.

[chad72 6,474]

8 minutes ago, Korey said:

 

Give me a super bowl like the Eagles then I can have a few seasons of a train wreck. 

 

Saints are up against the cap mortgaging picks trying to help an aging QB, why? They know their window is short. Elway and the Broncos pursued Talib, T J Ward, DeMarcus Ware during the home stretch of Peyton, why? The window they knew was short. They still kept their core like Von Miller re-signed but without elite QB play, they are either in purgatory or a non-factor.

 

If our window with any aging QB (Rivers or even if we sign Rodgers) is short, you have to be more aggressive while the young elite ones in their prime (Nelson, Buckner, Leonard, Kelly) are still dominant. Just my thought process if you believe in the pieces you have put together around the core elite pieces. 

 

We don't have to quite do the way the Saints do it but a little aggression in free agency or trades will only help this team, IMO, to knock on the door constantly before the right breaks happen and you are in a SB.

[Jared Cisneros 3,768]

3 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

You pay the elite players and make them part of your core but if the QB becomes part of your core, that affects the rest. It also means your window with those elite players might be the next 2-3 years like the Cowboys O-line, can't stay dominant and healthy while playing at that high level for long. So, you maximize the window with free agency additions while not losing sight of the fact that the franchise QB may not intersect with the prime of the OL, Buckner and Leonard. 

Exactly, and we have to count on Ballard being able to continually draft well. Year after year. Can he do it? If so, we can wait a few years for our franchise QB to develop. If not, then we are in a limited window. In any case, you are right. We sign our elite guys and probably only keep the good ones that are at important positions. Guys like Braden Smith and such. Ballard did get an unfair hand with the loss of Luck, and now he'll have to "draft for his life" as I like to put it, in order to keep this competitive long enough for our franchise QB to develop, and to compete when he is developed.

[Fisticuffs111 1,952]

19 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

You say that now but when the Colts won the Super Bowl with Peyton all a lot of fans did was whine that they didn’t win more.  Fans always want more.  
 

Also let’s not forget they won that Super Bowl with Foles.  Would they have won it had he been the starter all year?  I don’t know but you could argue that they might have in which case the Wentz trade looks worse.

 

You’re definitely right, we wanted more with Peyton, and Eagles fans would rather be winning than losing.

 

Otoh, from what I’ve seen on the NFL subreddit, Eagles fans are always commenting on how they at least won the SB and seem to take solace in that during these rough years.

 

Still, it’d be rough to be an Eagles fan right now.

[Dingus McGirt 1,506]

12 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Exactly, and we have to count on Ballard being able to continually draft well. Year after year. Can he do it? If so, we can wait a few years for our franchise QB to develop. If not, then we are in a limited window. In any case, you are right. We sign our elite guys and probably only keep the good ones that are at important positions. Guys like Braden Smith and such. Ballard did get an unfair hand with the loss of Luck, and now he'll have to "draft for his life" as I like to put it, in order to keep this competitive long enough for our franchise QB to develop, and to compete when he is developed.

Maybe some can wait “a few years” - but some of us are old...

[Nickster 769]

20 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think the troubled defense so far is due to roster weaknesses. Their roster isn't that much different than it was last year. And rushing defense isn't that important of a stat. Their 4th best in passing yards/game against. DVOA pass defense is 5th, DVOA overall defense is 13th.

 

But my point of contention is that the Chiefs aren't limited at edge or WR. So their QB "overcoming" roster weaknesses isn't really comparable with whatever we need to do to make up for our roster weaknesses. 

We need an elite QB.  They have one.  That is the difference in the two teams.  

 

Let me put it to you this way.  Switch Mahomes with Rivers.  Which team would be more likely to win a SB?  

[Jared Cisneros 3,768]

3 minutes ago, Dingus McGirt said:

Maybe some can wait “a few years” - but some of us are old...

Not sure how old you are. I'm 33, I've become disinterested after losing Luck. I'm not a poor sport or bandwagoner or anything like that, I'm a Colts fan who had a top 5 QB in Andrew Luck as my QB and lost him, and now I have to try and pretend to act like we have a chance against a powerhouse AFC conference without him at QB. I don't care if we have Ballard or a better team, with our QB situation the way it is, our chances of winning a SB are poor at best. 

[Nickster 769]

15 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

Lets say Parris comes back 100% and starts fantastic in 21' but gets hurt again.

 

At what point do we say we gotta move on...

It would depend on the injury.  This year wasn't anything anyone would call a chronic injury or injury prone injury.  It was an unfortunate play.  

 

He would be very cheap to bring back if he was injured next year and if he still had sub 4.3 speed of course you would bring him back.

[Korey 64]

Just now, GoColts8818 said:

You say that now but when the Colts won the Super Bowl with Peyton all a lot of fans did was whine that they didn’t win more.  Fans always want more.  
 

Also let’s not forget they won that Super Bowl with Foles.  Would they have won it had he been the starter all year?  I don’t know but you could argue that they might have in which case the Wentz trade looks worse.

I'm saying that now and always. Give me a Super Bowl this season and I would be fine with a few seasons of "train wreck"

[DougDew 2,270]

54 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Outside Ryan Kelly and Nelson, and maybe Leonard, name one player that a team would give up a 1st or 2nd rounder for on our team? Maybe Ballard does not believe we are on the cusp of SB contention that he does not want to mortgage our picks with any kind of risks unless it is a proven commodity, that is my only theory. Otherwise, I would be aggressive with our Draft Day 2 picks if I could.

Great point that says a lot.

 

I've believed throughout the past two seasons that Ballard himself thinks less of his roster and draft success than the fans do.  I don't think his moves last season had anything to do with thinking the Colts were close to a SB.  I think he brought in a competent QB like Rivers because he could not last another season with such incompetent play like JB.

 

IOW, he brought in Rivers to be able to go 8 and 8 and be competitive in the losing games while still building the roster...part of which was reloading on his whiffs..  Avoiding a repeat the second half of last season where the Colts were terribly outmatched any time the other team chose to put on the gas.

 

He wouldn't have trade for Buckner unless Buckner could play for another 5 years.  It wasn't a mortgage the future to win now trade of a first round pick. 

[Superman 8,331]

4 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

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.

 

It's not about giving him a pass. It's about saying stuff like 'Ballard's teams have a losing record' or 'what's he doing at QB,' which is nonsense.

 

They took Eason in the 4th, then spent the summer talking about how he needed to win a spot on the active roster. I don't think anyone is looking at Eason as "the guy." It would be cool if things worked out that way, but I think it's a mistake to count on it. If we still had Luck, and drafted Eason, he'd be viewed as a developmental guy who might have some value for us at some point. That's how I view him now.

 

As for Herbert, realistically speaking, we would have had to get up to #4. Neither the Dolphins nor the Chargers were moving from #5 or #6. That conversation probably starts with two firsts. I really like Herbert, if we were gonna move up for a QB I would have wanted it to be for him, but it's hard to imagine Ballard giving up the haul it would take to get there. 

 

We do need a long term solution. I'm just saying, until September of last year, we thought we had a long term solution. It's been one offseason without Luck. It's not a massive failure on Ballard's part that we didn't find "the guy" in 2020. Like you said, gotta put a pin in it for right now, and we'll see what happens next offseason.

[Superman 8,331]

23 minutes ago, Nickster said:

We need an elite QB.  They have one.  That is the difference in the two teams.  

 

Let me put it to you this way.  Switch Mahomes with Rivers.  Which team would be more likely to win a SB?  

 

When did we start comparing Mahomes with Rivers? I thought we were talking about roster deficiencies, and since ours major holes right now are at WR and DE (presumably), I was pointing out that Mahomes doesn't have to overcome those deficiencies. Those are actually strengths of the Chiefs roster.

 

But yes, of course, Mahomes is the man that makes it happen. He's the best QB in the league, the most dynamic player in the league, and as long as he's healthy his team will be relevant in the AFC. Rivers wasn't as talented as Mahomes is during his prime, and now Rivers is 37 years old. 

[aaron11 1,638]

i was hoping they would draft one of Tua, Herbert or Love in that order 

 

would have swamped firsts and traded a future first to get Tua or Herbert.

[Barry Sears 1,268]

Let's look at this from another angle...what current NFL GM would you rather have than Ballard?

[DougDew 2,270]

1 minute ago, Barry Sears said:

Let's look at this from another angle...what current NFL GM would you rather have than Ballard?

IDK specifically, but it seems like some teams are getting more mileage from their draft picks and signings than we are.  Some teams are getting less too.

[GoColts8818 4,257]

22 minutes ago, DougDew said:

IDK specifically, but it seems like some teams are getting more mileage from their draft picks and signings than we are.  Some teams are getting less too.

The Colts are honestly getting very good mileage from their draft picks.  If Luck was here, which isn’t Ballard’s fault, this team would be right up there with the Chiefs competing for a Super Bowl.  Franchise QBs are very hard to find, especially if you aren’t picking in the top 5 of the draft.  Remember Ballard had ONE draft where he was looking for a QB too.  Every other draft he’s done with the impression Andrew Luck was going to be here.  

[Nickster 769]

56 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

When did we start comparing Mahomes with Rivers? I thought we were talking about roster deficiencies, and since ours major holes right now are at WR and DE (presumably), I was pointing out that Mahomes doesn't have to overcome those deficiencies. Those are actually strengths of the Chiefs roster.

 

But yes, of course, Mahomes is the man that makes it happen. He's the best QB in the league, the most dynamic player in the league, and as long as he's healthy his team will be relevant in the AFC. Rivers wasn't as talented as Mahomes is during his prime, and now Rivers is 37 years old. 

Well that is what I am debating with you.  KC definitely has roster weaknesses and will have more as time goes along with the 50 million to Mahomes.  I disagree that they don't have deficiencies.  I think their deficiencies are covered up with Mahomes awesomeness.  They have a couple of really nice weapons in Kelce and Hill, and the rookie RB looks pretty good. 
 

I think the Colts roster "holes" are more obvious than KC.  KC would not be that good of a team with a Rivers as QB.  My guess is they'd basically be at our level.

 

I don't know if it was you that was talking about run defense.  Their run defense is and has been bad.  It doesn't matter because they will outscore you and they often put teams in a position to have to throw so the line can just T off on the QB ala the manning defenses.  But most teams would be in terrible shape with bad run defense.  You should know, you are a Colts fan and that was our defensive issue for about 2 decades except the one year with Bob Sanders.

 

My argument is that I think people overlook KCs defieciencies because the all time great QB play makes them irrelevant.

[Nickster 769]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

It's not about giving him a pass. It's about saying stuff like 'Ballard's teams have a losing record' or 'what's he doing at QB,' which is nonsense.

 

They took Eason in the 4th, then spent the summer talking about how he needed to win a spot on the active roster. I don't think anyone is looking at Eason as "the guy." It would be cool if things worked out that way, but I think it's a mistake to count on it. If we still had Luck, and drafted Eason, he'd be viewed as a developmental guy who might have some value for us at some point. That's how I view him now.

 

As for Herbert, realistically speaking, we would have had to get up to #4. Neither the Dolphins nor the Chargers were moving from #5 or #6. That conversation probably starts with two firsts. I really like Herbert, if we were gonna move up for a QB I would have wanted it to be for him, but it's hard to imagine Ballard giving up the haul it would take to get there. 

 

We do need a long term solution. I'm just saying, until September of last year, we thought we had a long term solution. It's been one offseason without Luck. It's not a massive failure on Ballard's part that we didn't find "the guy" in 2020. Like you said, gotta put a pin in it for right now, and we'll see what happens next offseason.

I agree with this post.

 

But in hindsight I think Herbert would have been worth 4 1st rounders and anyone else on the roster they wanted.

 

I think he might be better than Mahomes and I think Mahomes is the best football player I've ever seen.  They are going to be the new Manning Brady rivalry IMO.  

[Myles 3,914]

1 hour ago, Korey said:

I'm saying that now and always. Give me a Super Bowl this season and I would be fine with a few seasons of "train wreck"

I'm quite the opposite.   Not saying my way is better.

I would take the P. Manning years in Indy over the E. Manning years in New York even though they had an extra Super Bowl win.   I watch the Colts every year and I'd rather see them winning the division most years with a shot at a Super Bowl than dominating the league for only 1 season with a ring. 

[Nickster 769]

6 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'm quite the opposite.   Not saying my way is better.

I would take the P. Manning years in Indy over the E. Manning years in New York even though they had an extra Super Bowl win.   I watch the Colts every year and I'd rather see them winning the division most years with a shot at a Super Bowl than dominating the league for only 1 season with a ring. 

ditto.  I'd rather see a relevant team.

[AwesomeAustin 568]

Ballard has done a great job up to this point.  However, I’ve said this for 1.5yrs.  Luck retiring will ultimately cost Ballard and Reich their jobs.  It’s not fair but unfair circumstances cost people their jobs every day.  Only hope to keep their jobs is if they get a franchise QB on the roster within the next two off seasons.  That may be enough if they can also win. Time will tell.  
 

 

 

[DougDew 2,270]

58 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

The Colts are honestly getting very good mileage from their draft picks.  If Luck was here, which isn’t Ballard’s fault, this team would be right up there with the Chiefs competing for a Super Bowl.  Franchise QBs are very hard to find, especially if you aren’t picking in the top 5 of the draft.  Remember Ballard had ONE draft where he was looking for a QB too.  Every other draft he’s done with the impression Andrew Luck was going to be here.  

To use that as the standard, then what you are saying is that Grigson also got very good mileage from his draft picks (and FA signings I said) because we got into the playoffs every year that Luck was healthy, and I'm sure you don't want to go on the record around here saying that.

[crazycolt1 6,992]

35 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I agree with this post.

 

But in hindsight I think Herbert would have been worth 4 1st rounders and anyone else on the roster they wanted.

 

I think he might be better than Mahomes and I think Mahomes is the best football player I've ever seen.  They are going to be the new Manning Brady rivalry IMO.  

Four 1st rounders and a player? 

I highly doubt that. If Ballard would have traded four first rounders and a player, he should have been fired on the spot, no questions ask. 

[Superman 8,331]

37 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Well that is what I am debating with you.  KC definitely has roster weaknesses and will have more as time goes along with the 50 million to Mahomes.  I disagree that they don't have deficiencies.  I think their deficiencies are covered up with Mahomes awesomeness.  They have a couple of really nice weapons in Kelce and Hill, and the rookie RB looks pretty good. 
 

I think the Colts roster "holes" are more obvious than KC.  KC would not be that good of a team with a Rivers as QB.  My guess is they'd basically be at our level.

 

I don't know if it was you that was talking about run defense.  Their run defense is and has been bad.  It doesn't matter because they will outscore you and they often put teams in a position to have to throw so the line can just T off on the QB ala the manning defenses.  But most teams would be in terrible shape with bad run defense.  You should know, you are a Colts fan and that was our defensive issue for about 2 decades except the one year with Bob Sanders.

 

My argument is that I think people overlook KCs defieciencies because the all time great QB play makes them irrelevant.

 

This is becoming a broader discussion than it was when I made my original comment. Mahomes isn't overcoming deficiencies at receiver because the Chiefs have good receivers. Much better receivers than the Colts. That's the comparison I was speaking to.

 

Of course Mahomes' greatness helps them overcome other deficiencies, and makes others mostly irrelevant (like run defense, for the reasons you stated). And of course the Chiefs are better with Mahomes than they would be with Rivers.

 

To the Manning era Colts, I think they are predecessor of the Mahomes Chiefs. Outscore them, then rush the passer. That's the same philosophy. One major difference is that this era is more kind to that philosophy, another is that the Chiefs have a really good interior pass rusher who is good against the run, and a really good edge, as opposed to two good edges who aren't very good against the run. Another difference is they've better embraced the philosophy, as it's been more firmly established than it was 10-15 years ago.

[crazycolt1 6,992]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

To use that as the standard, then what you are saying is that Grigson also got very good mileage from his draft picks (and FA signings I said) because we got into the playoffs every year that Luck was healthy, and I'm sure you don't want to go on the record around here saying that.

That is not what he was referring to nor his intention. 

Even though Luck was drafted on Grigson's watch, that was Irsays pick from the start.