Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Recommended Posts

42 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.  

 

Did you think so in February? I mean, were you advocating giving up one of the greatest hauls of draft picks ever to get him? 

 

Also, it's been less than half a season, so maybe hold your water for a bit on Herbert. I like him a lot, but hindsight might be telling you something else in a couple months.

  • Like 1
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

7 minutes 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's a testament to how good Luck is, not how good the roster is. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

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.

Its synonymous with both his reference and intent.  He said that if we had Luck, we would be deep into the playoffs and that meant that Ballard got good mileage out of his draft picks.  That would be a bad standard by which to measure that, and I explained why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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"

First of all, the flaw with this logic is the casually used phrase of, "a few seasons". The idea of giving up several picks to win now, means giving up high picks to replace Castonzo and Hilton, not to mention Houston and Doyle. Reality says that it would be far more than a few years. 


Further more, this view fails to acknowledge the expectations of the front office. Every week.....every week, they are expected to trot out a viable product for fans to watch, root for, and spend their hard earned dollars on. Reality also says that a significant portion of fans would sour on going to games if the team was looking like a long rebuilding process.

 

For me personally, I much rather see my team be consistently competitive, hard working, and selfless in their approach to winning for the shoe, than to sell out to get a SB and quite possible suck for years. It's not even close in my world.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes 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.

If you think Grigson’s teams had as much talent outside the QB spot as Ballard’s do you are entitled to your opinion.  

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

Its synonymous with both his reference and intent.  He said that if we had Luck, we would be deep into the playoffs and that meant that Ballard got good mileage out of his draft picks.  That would be a bad standard by which to measure that, and I explained why.

That is what your interpretation. 

Mine is we won with Luck in spite of Grigson. 

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

 

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.

I thought you were claiming that KC had no big deficiencies on the roster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

If you think Grigson’s teams had as much talent outside the QB spot as Ballard’s do you are entitled to your opinion.  

That's not what I said. 

 

If you use your standard, that getting deep into the playoffs with Luck is the measure of how good the rest of the roster is, then that is the complete opposite of what the narrative was around here when Grigson was GM.  

 

Take your pick if you want to praise or criticize the GM based upon that standard.  Just be consistent. 

2 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

That is what your interpretation. 

Mine is we won with Luck in spite of Grigson. 

No, that is not my interpretation.  Read what I just wrote above.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Superman said:

Also, it's been less than half a season, so maybe hold your water for a bit on Herbert. I like him a lot, but hindsight might be telling you something else in a couple months.

I like to see how young QB's perform near the end of year two. They usually face a film adjusted approach on defense every week, and we get to see how they in turn.... up their game. 

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

That's not what I said. 

 

If you use your standard, that getting deep into the playoffs with Luck is the measure of how good the rest of the roster is, then that is the complete opposite of what the narrative was around here when Grigson was GM.  

 

Take your pick if you want to praise or criticize the GM based upon that standard.  Just be consistent. 

No, that is not my interpretation.  Read what I just wrote above.

Yeah, my point was Ballard has built a very good team overall and if he had the QB he had planned to have 3 of the 4 years he’s been building it they would be one of if not the best teams in the league right now.  Grigson had Andrew Luck who covered up a lot of holes to the point Grigson’s inability to build a team around Luck especially at the line position ruined his career and cost Luck and the Colts at least seven years of his career.    You are over looking that and trying to twist my words into something else to try to get away from your incorrect take that Ballard hasn’t done well in the draft.  Ballard has drafted two all pros.  That’s more than Grigson ever did a lone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Did you think so in February? I mean, were you advocating giving up one of the greatest hauls of draft picks ever to get him? 

 

Also, it's been less than half a season, so maybe hold your water for a bit on Herbert. I like him a lot, but hindsight might be telling you something else in a couple months.

EDIT:  No not in Feb.  I watch very little college ball and really don't know anything at all about Oregon.  I'm talking hindsight.

 

It's slight exaggeration on the haul but honestly, yes I would give up that kind of haul for Mahomes and I think Herbert is going to be that type of player.

 

I would give 4 1st rounders and any of our other players for Mahomes right now, and I am confident that the org would be better off for the next 10 years with him at QB and the GM scrambling to put together a usable roster w/o 1st rounders.

 

Herbert is an eye test thing. He makes every throw and very calm.  He moves instinctually etc.   That was the first thing I noticed about Mahomes. I was skeptical, thought he must be gimmick type QB, but the first time I saw him I told my brother that he might be the GOAT.  That is what I see in Herbert.

 

I will be shocked, barring injury of course, if Herbert isn't that type of player.  What he is doing now has never been done before.

 

To be a rookie coming in his first few games and dominating the field like he does is almost beyond belief.  He didnt even take 1st team reps until about a month ago.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Behle said:

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

I'm not sure.  This year yeah, but he had the best receiver in the game and other talent the last several years.

 

I think he's pretty average.  Gaudy numbers at times but mediocre results IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Yeah, my point was Ballard has built a very good team overall and if he had the QB he had planned to have 3 of the 4 years he’s been building it they would be one of if not the best teams in the league right now.  Grigson had Andrew Luck who covered up a lot of holes to the point Grigson’s inability to build a team around Luck especially at the line position ruined his career and cost Luck and the Colts at least seven years of his career.    You are over looking that and trying to twist my words into something else to try to get away from your incorrect take that Ballard hasn’t done well in the draft.  Ballard has drafted two all pros.  That’s more than Grigson ever did a lone.

I'm not twisting anything you said.  You are simply justifying the quality of the roster based upon an assumption of where you think we would be if Luck was here.  I simply mentioned that we were already there with a healthy Luck and Grigson...year after year....  then you got into a twist about that.

 

This is my opinion, which is the comment you quoted that started this:

 

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.

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

I like to see how young QB's perform near the end of year two. They usually face a film adjusted approach on defense every week, and we get to see how they in turn.... up their game. 

I do your yard work all summer of 2022 if he isn't obvious how great he is by then.

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

I'm not twisting anything you said.  You are simply justifying the quality of the roster based upon an assumption of where you think we would be if Luck was here.  I simply mentioned that we were already there with a healthy Luck and Grigson...year after year....  then you got into a twist about that.

 

This is my opinion, which is the comment you quoted that started this:

 

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.

No they weren’t,  they were a 11-5 team that got into the playoffs three times because they had an elite QB and a very good WR and a few hold overs from the Polian teams, McAfee, Adam, Wayne, AC, and, Mathis that was about it.  That speaks more to how good Luck and those holdovers were than anything else.  As those players got older and he had to replace them he couldn’t because his drafts outside of his first one and pick here or there after that were awful.  
 

Ballard on the other hand has pretty much turned the roster over minus TY, Kelly, Doyle, and AC and has built a very good team for the most part outside of the QB spot which he didn’t have need to worry about until this year.  You don’t do that if you aren’t getting very good mileage out of your picks.  If Grigson was getting good mileage out of his he would still be here and Andrew Luck would be too.  He wasn’t so he’s not.  
 

If you can’t see the difference that’s on you.  Just about everyone else can.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

No they weren’t,  they were a 11-5 team that got into the playoffs three times because they had an elite QB and a very good WR and a few hold overs from the Polian teams, McAfee, Adam, Wayne, AC, and, Mathis that was about it.  That speaks more to how good Luck and those holdovers were than anything else.  As those players got older and he had to replace them he couldn’t because his drafts outside of his first one and pick here or there after that were awful.  
 

Ballard on the other hand has pretty much turned the roster over minus TY, Kelly, Doyle, and AC and has built a very good team for the most part outside of the QB spot which he didn’t have need to worry about until this year.  You don’t do that if you aren’t getting very good mileage out of your picks.  If Grigson was getting good mileage out of his he would still be here and Andrew Luck would be too.  He wasn’t so he’s not.  
 

If you can’t see the difference that’s on you.  Just about everyone else can.

No they weren't what?  They weren't at the point back then you said we would be at now if we had Luck now?  Sure they were.  Its even in an almanac somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I thought you were claiming that KC had no big deficiencies on the roster.

 

I don't think they have big deficiencies, especially on offense. But they could get better at ILB and corner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

No they weren’t,  they were a 11-5 team that got into the playoffs three times because they had an elite QB and a very good WR and a few hold overs from the Polian teams, McAfee, Adam, Wayne, AC, and, Mathis that was about it.  That speaks more to how good Luck and those holdovers were than anything else.  As those players got older and he had to replace them he couldn’t because his drafts outside of his first one and pick here or there after that were awful.  
 

Ballard on the other hand has pretty much turned the roster over minus TY, Kelly, Doyle, and AC and has built a very good team for the most part outside of the QB spot which he didn’t have need to worry about until this year.  You don’t do that if you aren’t getting very good mileage out of your picks.  If Grigson was getting good mileage out of his he would still be here and Andrew Luck would be too.  He wasn’t so he’s not.  
 

If you can’t see the difference that’s on you.  Just about everyone else can.

Now if you've moved on to saying that holdovers from a previous regime is a reason to not give credit to present GM, how do you feel about holdovers like AC, TY, Kelly, and Doyle contributing to whatever success we've had?  Fairly significant?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

This is you exact post.

So yes you did insinuate that GoColts was saying Grigson also got good mileage from his draft and that is not what GoColts was saying. That was your twisting of words and meanings to make an issue out of a non issue. 

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

This is you exact post.

So yes you did insinuate that GoColts was saying Grigson also got good mileage from his draft and that is not what GoColts was saying. That was your twisting of words and meanings to make an issue out of a non issue. 

I think its pretty clear that I was saying that if you solely use the standard of getting to the playoffs with Luck, you have to apply it consistently to any and all GMs.

 

He brought up the standard, not me.

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

No they weren't what?  They weren't at the point back then you said we would be at now if we had Luck now?  Sure they were.  Its even in an almanac somewhere.

Not they weren’t one of the best teams in the league under Grigson.  They were a playoff teams thanks a superstar QB, a good young WR and two if not three hall of Famers from the previous GM plus at least two more pro bowlers held over from the previous GM.  They were never one of the top two or three teams in the league under Grigson though.  It was fools gold that couldn’t be sustained.  
 

If the Colts had Luck or another elite QB Right now I do think the Colts would be one of the top two or three teams in the league and set up to be like they were under Peyton with sustained success year in and out.  That’s a huge difference from where they were under Grigson and that is because they are getting very good mileage out of their draft picks.  They have found two all pros, another rock solid right tackle, a starting line backer who is very understated by some here in the 7th round, another linebacker in the third round who is very promising, two starting safeties, including one who is looking like he might be break out playmaker in his rookie year, A very promising end, two starting level running backs including a 1000 yard rusher in the fifth round.  Two good returners as well.  That’s also not getting into Rock who is if you look at numbers is playing very well second year corner, Lewis who is starting to find a home in this defense, and a undrafted kid at kicker and punter who are looking very good.  
 

take away Luck and Grigson found what in the draft?  TY and Kelly?  That’s about it.  
 

So again if you don’t think the Colts are getting very good mileage out of their draft picks under Ballard then you are entitled to that opinion but very few are going to agree with you.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Now if you've moved on to saying that holdovers from a previous regime is a reason to not give credit to present GM, how do you feel about holdovers like AC, TY, Kelly, and Doyle contributing to whatever success we've had?  Fairly significant?

Which is why I listed them.  He’s also found two all pros and several other very good players in the draft.  Now name me some very good players Grigson found in the draft outside of Luck, TY, and, Kelly.  Ill wait.  

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

I think its pretty clear that I was saying that if you solely use the standard of getting to the playoffs with Luck, you have to apply it consistently to any and all GMs.

 

He brought up the standard, not me.

You even backed up your insinuation with a warning to GoColts he didn't want to be on record around here with that. 

It is simple. GoColts didn't go anywhere within the realm of what you are talking about. 

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

You even backed up your insinuation with a warning to GoColts he didn't want to be on record around here with that. 

It is simple. GoColts didn't go anywhere within the realm of what you are talking about. 

He’s just deflecting away from the fact that he had a back take on the Colts not getting good mileage out of their draft picks under Ballard by trying to make it into Ballard vs Grigson even though my post had nothing to do with Grigson.  I just challenged his opinion on them not getting god mileage out of their picks on Ballard and he can’t back that up so he’s trying to twist it into an argument about something else.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballard is doing an amazing job, and IF Luck hadn't retired, well, things could have been much different, but he retired and things changed.

 

Remember Ballard had to deal with a depleted roster from Ryan Grigson and first he hed to clean up that mess.

So far he's done an amazing job, and we have improved every season during his tenure.

 

Regarding the QB situation, well... Rivers may be one and done after this season with the colts, unless we trade up in the next draft and land a young QB that Rivers can mentor for his last season.

 

If that dont happen, I see him and the Colts trade for or try to land one of the following QB´s:

 

Dak Prescott - might be a free agent and give him the best O-line in the NFL and lets se what happens.

Don't think the Cowboys will extend his contract as he's injured right now.

 

Sam Darnold - If the jets land the nr 1 pick and Trevor Lawrence get's drafted by the Jets, I see Ballard try to acquire Darnold.

 

Wildcard:

Trubisky to the Colts in free agency.

If Rivers need a new backup and the colts dont land a new QB in the Draft, Trubisky could be our new backup. Dont see him as a starter, but a backup behind rivers in his last season would be the perfect solution for both parties.

 

But overall Ballard is one of the best GM's in the league and I love whats he's done so far.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Not they weren’t one of the best teams in the league under Grigson.  They were a playoff teams thanks a superstar QB, a good young WR and two if not three hall of Famers from the previous GM plus at least two more pro bowlers held over from the previous GM.  They were never one of the top two or three teams in the league under Grigson though.  It was fools gold that couldn’t be sustained.  
 

If the Colts had Luck or another elite QB Right now I do think the Colts would be one of the top two or three teams in the league and set up to be like they were under Peyton with sustained success year in and out.  That’s a huge difference from where they were under Grigson and that is because they are getting very good mileage out of their draft picks.  They have found two all pros, another rock solid right tackle, a starting line backer who is very understated by some here in the 7th round, another linebacker in the third round who is very promising, two starting safeties, including one who is looking like he might be break out playmaker in his rookie year, A very promising end, two starting level running backs including a 1000 yard rusher in the fifth round.  Two good returners as well.  That’s also not getting into Rock who is if you look at numbers is playing very well second year corner, Lewis who is starting to find a home in this defense, and a undrafted kid at kicker and punter who are looking very good.  
 

take away Luck and Grigson found what in the draft?  TY and Kelly?  That’s about it.  
 

So again if you don’t think the Colts are getting very good mileage out of their draft picks under Ballard then you are entitled to that opinion but very few are going to agree with you.  

I never said that they were one of the best teams. 

 

I said they achieved with Luck back then what you think they might have achieved with Luck now.

 

And now that if no credit should be given to holdovers back then, well, then no credit should be given to holdovers now.

 

Not sure what you're reading into here.

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

Ballard is doing an amazing job, and IF Luck hadn't retired, well, things could have been much different, but he retired and things changed.

 

Remember Ballard had to deal with a depleted roster from Ryan Grigson and first he hed to clean up that mess.

So far he's done an amazing job, and we have improved every season during his tenure.

 

Regarding the QB situation, well... Rivers may be one and done after this season with the colts, unless we trade up in the next draft and land a young QB that Rivers can mentor for his last season.

 

If that dont happen, I see him and the Colts trade for or try to land one of the following QB´s:

 

Dak Prescott - might be a free agent and give him the best O-line in the NFL and lets se what happens.

Don't think the Cowboys will extend his contract as he's injured right now.

 

Sam Darnold - If the jets land the nr 1 pick and Trevor Lawrence get's drafted by the Jets, I see Ballard try to acquire Darnold.

 

Wildcard:

Trubisky to the Colts in free agency.

If Rivers need a new backup and the colts dont land a new QB in the Draft, Trubisky could be our new backup. Dont see him as a starter, but a backup behind rivers in his last season would be the perfect solution for both parties.

 

But overall Ballard is one of the best GM's in the league and I love whats he's done so far.

 

 

 

Breaking News into SportsCenter this week: Colts coach Frank Reich will be out several weeks after suffering a concussion. Sources say Trubisky was trying to hit TY Hilton in practice but the ball went about 30 yards to the sideline where Reich and Ballard were discussing dinner plans. 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

He’s just deflecting away from the fact that he had a back take on the Colts not getting good mileage out of their draft picks under Ballard by trying to make it into Ballard vs Grigson even though my post had nothing to do with Grigson.  I just challenged his opinion on them not getting god mileage out of their picks on Ballard and he can’t back that up so he’s trying to twist it into an argument about something else.

Me?, I'm turning it into a Ballard vs Grigson?  I didn't evaluate Grigson.  I mentioned his name to lift up the standard that was being applied to Ballard.  That's not a comparison of the competence of GMs.  Its about the standard being used to evaluate the competence of Ballard.  

 

 

Not sure what you're getting into a twist about.

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

I never said that they were one of the best teams. 

 

I said they achieved with Luck back then what you think they might have achieved with Luck now.

 

And now that if no credit should be given to holdovers back then, well, then no credit should be given to holdovers now.

 

Not sure what you're reading into here.

Yeah that’s not what I said at all about the hold overs.  Ill say it again the Colts won under Grigson solely because of Luck, TY, and the holdovers.  Ballards teams have benefited from the hold overs but he’s also found other good players over multiple drafts that have expanded the talent beyond the hold overs.  
 

Also if you agree that the Colts weren’t one of the best teams under Grigson then you also agree with me that the Colts were not “already there” under Grigson about my original point about Ballard.  Again, my point to you was thanks to Ballard’s drafting if the Colts still had luck they would be one of if not the best teams in the league.  
 

They don’t have him so they aren’t but that doesn’t change the fact that Ballard has done a very good job finding talent in the draft since he’s been here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Yeah that’s not what I said at all about the hold overs.  Ill say it again the Colts won under Grigson solely because of Luck, TY, and the holdovers.  Ballards teams have benefited from the hold overs but he’s also found other good players over multiple drafts that have expanded the talent beyond the hold overs.  
 

Also if you agree that the Colts weren’t one of the best teams under Grigson then you also agree with me that the Colts were not “already there” under Grigson about my original point about Ballard.  Again, my point to you was thanks to Ballard’s drafting if the Colts still had luck they would be one of if not the best teams in the league.  
 

They don’t have him so they aren’t but that doesn’t change the fact that Ballard has done a very good job finding talent in the draft since he’s been here.

Huh?  I never said that they were one of the best teams under Grigson.  And that's not same thing as agreeing they weren't.

 

Obviously you've gotten your circuits in a loop because of the thought that Ballard cannot separate from Grison is any of the ways you have measured so far.

 

How about this as a standard?  Instead of gauging Ballard's roster by assuming what he would do with Luck  (which has already been accomplished), why not simply see what he does without Luck? 

 

You know, reality

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Huh?  I never said that they were one of the best teams under Grigson.  And that's not same thing as agreeing they weren't.

 

Obviously you've gotten your circuits in a loop because of the thought that Ballard cannot separate from Grison is any of the ways you have measured so far.

 

How about this as a standard?  Instead of gauging Ballard's roster by assuming what he would do with Luck  (which has already been accomplished), why not simply see what he does without Luck? 

 

You know, reality

Then why even bring Grigson up if you didn’t want to compare things under him?  Oh that’s right you were spinning to get away from your bad take that Ballard wasn’t getting much Mileage out of his draft picks and you can’t just say okay maybe I was wrong and they are getting better mileage than I first thought.  Instead you tried to twist it into something about Grigson which I didn’t even bring up.  
 

Grigson had nothing to do with my first replay to you,  My point which you clearly missed is that this team has a lot of talent because of Ballard’s drafting over the past four years.  So much so that if they had the QB they spent three of the past four off-seasons drafting for I think they would be one of the top two or three teams in the NFL if not the best.  
 

you then tried to make it into something about well then I have to say to the Colts were good under Grigson because they made the playoffs under him which is not at all the point I was making.  My point has been and remains is that the Colts are getting great mileage out of their draft picks under Ballard.  You are just ignoring that point because you can’t dispute it.  Is it perfect?  No, no GM is. Is it better than most teams in the NFL?  Yes.  
 

so if you want live in reality let’s live in reality and admit Ballard has done a good job drafting.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Then why even bring Grigson up if you didn’t want to compare things under him?  Oh that’s right you were spinning to get away from your bad take that Ballard wasn’t getting much Mileage out of his draft picks and you can’t just say okay maybe I was wrong and they are getting better mileage than I first thought.  Instead you tried to twist it into something about Grigson which I didn’t even bring up.  
 

Grigson had nothing to do with my first replay to you,  My point which you clearly missed is that this team has a lot of talent because of Ballard’s drafting over the past four years.  So much so that if they had the QB they spent three of the past four off-seasons drafting for I think they would be one of the top two or three teams in the NFL if not the best.  
 

you then tried to make it into something about well then I have to say to the Colts were good under Grigson because they made the playoffs under him which is not at all the point I was making.  My point has been and remains is that the Colts are getting great mileage out of their draft picks under Ballard.  You are just ignoring that point because you can’t dispute it.  Is it perfect?  No, no GM is. Is it better than most teams in the NFL?  Yes.  

I wasn't "comparing things under him".  I was showing you an inconsistent application of your standard.  You just got excited because it involved Grigson's name.

 

BTW, considering that AC, TY, Kelly, and Doyle may be 4 of our top 6 players (close for sure), how close are we to being a SB team from the AFC?  Keeping in mind that 3 of them may have to be replaced soon just to keep level set.

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

I wasn't comparing "things under him".  I was showing you an inconsistent application of your standard.  You just got excited because it involved Grigson's name.

 

BTW, considering that AC, TY, Kelly, and Doyle may be 4 of our top 6 players (close for sure), how close are we to being a SB team?  Keeping in mind that 3 of them may have to be replaced soon just to keep level set.

Give them a franchise QB like they had in Luck they are right there.

 

Also I would say TY and Doyle are not four of their top six players on the team.  I think Houston, Buckner, Leonard, Smith, Nelson, Rhodes, and Blackman are all better.  You could make a case for Mack, Bobby O and Walker too.  

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

I'm not sure.  This year yeah, but he had the best receiver in the game and other talent the last several years.

 

I think he's pretty average.  Gaudy numbers at times but mediocre results IMO.

 

A freaking men.

 

Watson is the absolute king of empty stats.  Look no further than last week against GB.  In the first half when the outcome of the game was actually being determined?  He is nowhere to be found.  Cannot so much as lead his team to a field goal.  

 

Once the game is out of reach and the defense calls off the dogs and becomes more lax, that's when he suddenly produces.  You want alot of passing yards and TD passes from the 2 yard line (Watson leads the universe in TD passes from within the five yard line when most teams use their stable of running backs) when your team is down 3 scores?  He is definitely your man.

 

Cannot believe that man is going to make 160 million on his next contract.  I'm glad, because that franchise will be in the dumps for a while thanks to that contract and the damage O'Brien inflicted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Give them a franchise QB like they had in Luck they are right there.

 

Also I would say TY and Doyle are not four of their top six players on the team.  I think Houston, Buckner, Leonard, Smith, Nelson, Rhodes, and Blackman are all better.  You could make a case for Mack, Bobby O and Walker too.  

Ok, give them a healthy franchise QB and they'll be right back where they were any time they had one in the past 20 years.  Oops, does that statement mean I'm doing a "Polian comparison" now?

 

TY and Doyle have certainly tailed off this year.  I was thinking of Nelson and Leonard in the top 6.  Forgot about Buckner.  Mack, Bobby O and Walker are laughable.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Ok, give them a healthy franchise QB and they'll be right back where they were any time they had one in the past 20 years.  Oops, does that statement mean I'm doing a "Polian comparison" now?

 

TY and Doyle have certainly tailed off this year.  I was thinking of Nelson and Leonard in the top 6.  Forgot about Buckner.  Mack, Bobby O and Walker are laughable.

Based on this year?  Not really.  
 

I didn’t bring up Grigson you did.  You brought him into this conversation when it had nothing to do with my point to you that Ballard has lead to the Colts getting good mileage out of their draft picks.  The only way that’s even related to what I was saying is if you are wanting to compare him.  If not it’s a distraction tactic and since you are just refusing to back up your point that the Colts aren’t getting good mileage out of their draft picks your exposing it for what it was.  You had a bad take which you can’t back up.  If you could you would have by now.  You don’t want to admit it.  Okay have a nice day.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Based on this year?  Not really.  
 

I didn’t bring up Grigson you did.  You brought him into this conversation when it had nothing to do with my point to you that Ballard has lead to the Colts getting good mileage out of their draft picks.  The only way that’s even related to what I was saying is if you are wanting to compare him.  If not it’s a distraction tactic and since you are just refusing to back up your point that the Colts aren’t getting good mileage out of their draft picks your exposing it for what it was.  You had a bad take which you can’t back up.  If you could you would have by now.  You don’t want to admit it.  Okay have a nice day.

And the point being? I brought up his name to show a time bucket.  The years labeled Grigson.  You got all triggered up and went into a diatribe about comparing GMs just because you read the name and didn't bother to understand the context.

 

Again, the standard YOU used to show that we are getting good mileage out of the draft picks was to say that "if we had Luck we would be a playoff team"

 

Forget the name Grigson if you can, because you get all trolled up and triggered.

 

By that standard, then this roster is no different than at any time in the past 7 years when we went to the playoffs? 

 

Or farther back, the past 20?

 

Or by that standard alone are you saying that this roster is better, and the one we had 15 years ago is better, but the roster we had in the middle is worse simply because it is.  Using the standard of going to the playoffs when we have a healthy franchise QB as the tool of measure.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ballard has done a great job. We don’t win the game against CIN with Justin Houston. He is an unsung hero on this team. He brought the defense together and spoke to everyone. Ballard bringing that type of leadership should go unquestioned. We also have depth on our roster. This was something I’ve been preaching about since 2016. 

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

A few related thoughts: 

 

I agree about his DE drafting.  They seem to fit a plan of using rotating players in a number of defensive packages rather than finding 3 down talented DEs.  I think scheme over talent can work at other positions, but not at those island like positions such as DE (and LT, and man-cornerback if we play that occasionally).

 

He chose to switch schemes from a 34 to a 43.  Whatever the level of talent that was there, it was not going to last long anyway simply because of scheme change.  Filling those voids that would have otherwise been filled set him back a few second and third round picks probably.

 

As far as coaching.  It looks like New England is showing us that issues in the talent area can compromise good coaches a little more than we perhaps thought,

 

So maybe Reich doesn't attack the edges so much because he doesn't like the talent he has to work with there yet.  Sees his best chances as being in the middle of the field.

 

Although there are always coaching decisions that can stand out on their own

I simply think they got too cute with draft picks outside of Turay. Turay was actually seen as a better run stopper than pass rusher in college, so I still hope he can be a 3 down guy. Lewis was a tweener, Banogu was just a raw guy that lacked technique (due to scheme he came from), and the whole SAM stuff was a stretch from the start.

 

You also have to consider we blitz less than most in the NFL. So they're expecting the DL to get home without much help. I don't know if that's Flus, or Reich's conservative nature. Flus was much more aggressive in Dallas.

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

I simply think they got too cute with draft picks outside of Turay. Turay was actually seen as a better run stopper than pass rusher in college, so I still hope he can be a 3 down guy. Lewis was a tweener, Banogu was just a raw guy that lacked technique (due to scheme he came from), and the whole SAM stuff was a stretch from the start.

 

You also have to consider we blitz less than most in the NFL. So they're expecting the DL to get home without much help. I don't know if that's Flus, or Reich's conservative nature. Flus was much more aggressive in Dallas.

I think both coordinators see limitations to the abilities or experience of players on the field and it limits them as to how they game plan and call plays.  At this point, the below average quality of the personnel is influencing the decisions they can make.  Its still a game of individual matchups and I think they think there are only so many plays where our players can win their battles.

 

As players develop or become available...or are replaced with better players.....you might see things change.

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

    • This may be the best football interview I have ever seen.  Must see for Colts, Packers or any other football fan!   Rodgers is the most candid I've seen and he's really funny.      
    • 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.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...