Chris Ballard

[EastStreet]

15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

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.

I disagree. Houston/Buckner/Stewart/Autry + our LBs crew (regardless if in base or nickel), are a good front 7, and capable of being very disruptive when blitzing. We simply don't blitz a lot, just like we play soft zone a lot. It's more scheme choice than personnel. The old bend don't break...

[csmopar]

Given what he started with, and the level of QUALITY he's brought to every position BUT two, I'm giving him an A- and I think he's here for at least 3-4 more years. I like what he's done across the board. My concerns are the QB position, obviously, but I'm also concerned about the lack of ability when it comes to the WR position.  Yes, it can be said he's tried to address it, but after 3 tries now, 3 misses, i think its a glaring weakness in both Ballard and the scouting department.  Which isn't bad I supposed given he seems to be hitting on every other position. It may take us venturing into a trade or a big WR pick up to really bring that area up. 

[DougDew]

1 hour 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.

In response to a question, what other GM would you rather have? I responded that it seems that we are not getting good mileage out of our picks as much as some other teams, and more mileage than others.  That is a mild opinion because I really didn't care about picking a name and going down a list of draft picks.  I'm happy with Ballard, but just off the top.

 

I think Baltimore continues to get more mileage.  Starting with 2017 when they picked Marlon Humphry at pick 16 when the first 15 teams passed on him.  And they've done a good job at building a team around a specialty QB a non universal franchise QB because they were astute enough to see they would never be in position to get one, so they built around what they could get.

 

Gruden has done a great job with LV.  In part because he jettisoned his aged WR he inherited and boldly stocked up on WRs in the draft when it was deep with talent.

 

Pittsburgh has Ben of course, but they have been able to convert from a smash mouth team to an arial attack offense, even after losing their stud but troubled #1 WR.  Their defense seems to have recovered sufficiently after losing their stud LB only a couple of years ago, Shazier (sp)

 

KC.  They pick players to suit their game. The team has a defined identity.

 

SF. They have done well with lots of capital.  They had a lot, but at least their mileage got them into the playoffs.

 

SEA, GB.  Always contenders.  Having the QB helps.  SEA lost a ton of players, but now has recharged.

 

Bills have done pretty well.  Didn't squander a high valued pick on a non high value position, and even traded up to get it.

 

TENN has done well.  Added a complimentary QB to their smash mouth running game.  Picked a great WR in round 2 a couple of years ago.

 

OTOH, NE has not drafted well, and now it shows up better as their QB has moved on.

 

ARIZ seems to always have lots of capital, but seems to get bad mileage out of it.

[DougDew]

19 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I disagree. Houston/Buckner/Stewart/Autry + our LBs crew (regardless if in base or nickel), are a good front 7, and capable of being very disruptive when blitzing. We simply don't blitz a lot, just like we play soft zone a lot. It's more scheme choice than personnel. The old bend don't break...

Front 4 don't blitz, necessarily.  Maybe Flus doesn't blitz because Oke and Walker aren't very good, and Leonard has to stay back because he's the one with any competent range.  When he's on the field.

[EastStreet]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Front 4 don't blitz, necessarily.  Maybe Flus doesn't blitz because Oke and Walker aren't very good, and Leonard has to stay back because he's the one with any competent range.  When he's on the field.

I'm not saying the front 4 blitz. I'm saying we don't blitz as a D. And I'm saying we haven't blitzed a lot since Reich took over. Our front 4 would be able to "look" better, if our opponents were more concerned with the blitzing in general, be it LB or DB blitzes. Instead, they are able to focus on the front 4 without much thought or fear of the blitz. There's a symbiosis in blitzing in coverage. There's always a risk. We're just not that risky. It's why we also play a lot more zone than man.

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I'm not saying the front 4 blitz. I'm saying we don't blitz as a D. And I'm saying we haven't blitzed a lot since Reich took over. Our front 4 would be able to "look" better, if our opponents were more concerned with the blitzing in general, be it LB or DB blitzes. Instead, they are able to focus on the front 4 without much thought or fear of the blitz. There's a symbiosis in blitzing in coverage. There's always a risk. We're just not that risky. It's why we also play a lot more zone than man.

Could be Reich, no doubt.  It just struck me in your previous post about how Flus blitzed more in Dallas than here (acknowledging that he wasn't DC in Dallas).  I'm thinking that a person doesn't change their philosophy when they switch teams, its just as likely they run plays based upon the personnel they have.

 

I don't know about Reich.  He may not be a play caller.  Should Siranni call the plays?

 

Maybe he wants Flus to bend but not break because Reich doesn't feel like is O is where it needs to be from a personnel standpoint and scoring standpoint.  Hold the other team to FGs instead of giving up the big play.

 

All speculation or opinion.

[jshipp23]

On 10/28/2020 at 10:06 AM, danlhart87 said:

The top QBs will be gone by the time Colts pick so Colts have several options:

 

. Select best available OT or DE and re-sign Rivers. 

 

. Select best available OT or DE and start Eason and draft his backup late.

 

I hadn't done tons of research. Is there going to be a QB in 20s range to draft? One that would certainly start over Eason. Because if not you might as well start Eason.

Wrong..there will be several talented qbs available in offseason via trade or free agency..If Philip looks good roll with him another year..Im pro Philip Rivers..its refreshing to have a qb that can read a defense and get rid of the ball..

[jshipp23]

Also check Jim Harbaughs availability..Time may be rignt to pull that trigger

[EastStreet]

15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Could be Reich, no doubt.  It just struck me in your previous post about how Flus blitzed more in Dallas than here (acknowledging that he wasn't DC in Dallas).  I'm thinking that a person doesn't change their philosophy when they switch teams, its just as likely they run plays based upon the personnel they have.

 

I don't know about Reich.  He may not be a play caller.  Should Siranni call the plays?

 

Maybe he wants Flus to bend but not break because Reich doesn't feel like is O is where it needs to be from a personnel standpoint and scoring standpoint.  Hold the other team to FGs instead of giving up the big play.

 

All speculation or opinion.

There's just no way to know how much Reich impacts the D. Obviously he approves the game plan though. IMO, either both Reich and Flus are conservative, or Reich is impacting Flus to be more conservative. And I just don't think Flus is conservative looking at his entire history. If you look at his days as DC at the college level, I don't see conservative play. 

[danlhart87]

40 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

Wrong..there will be several talented qbs available in offseason via trade or free agency..If Philip looks good roll with him another year..Im pro Philip Rivers..its refreshing to have a qb that can read a defense and get rid of the ball..

Name the ones available in FA or trade and please be realistic 

[DougDew]

36 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

There's just no way to know how much Reich impacts the D. Obviously he approves the game plan though. IMO, either both Reich and Flus are conservative, or Reich is impacting Flus to be more conservative. And I just don't think Flus is conservative looking at his entire history. If you look at his days as DC at the college level, I don't see conservative play. 

Speaking about offense now.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Bengals game was the first game since 2018 where the offense has shown Reich that it can come back from a real deficit.  

 

He may gain confidence in what can now be done, and open up the playbook more going forward, and also allow Flus to take more risks.

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Speaking about offense now.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Bengals game was the first game since 2018 where the offense has shown Reich that it can come back from a real deficit.  

 

He may gain confidence in what can now be done, and open up the playbook more going forward.

Lions are bottom 10 vs the run, and not very good vs the pass either. I have no clue what we'll do.

[Defjamz26]

2 hours ago, jshipp23 said:

Also check Jim Harbaughs availability..Time may be rignt to pull that trigger

This the same Jim Harbaugh that got smacked by Florida in the bowl game last year and hasn’t even gotten his team to a Big 10 championship game appearance (including getting beaten out by Northwestern one year)?

 

Asking for a friend...

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, jshipp23 said:

Also check Jim Harbaughs availability..Time may be rignt to pull that trigger

Nah. Jim is where he needs to be.

[Dingus McGirt]

19 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

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. 

Yet, here you are, sir.

 

[Yoshinator]

41 minutes ago, Dingus McGirt said:

Yet, here you are, sir.

 

Yep, they've kept me strung along with a 4-2 record, great drafting, and doing just enough at the QB position right now to make it look like we have a chance to make the playoffs. That's what the FO is doing as of now to keep fans interested. However, they'll need to do better next year with Eason, a drafted QB, or someone else in FA or we'll be a mediocre team from now on.

[Dingus McGirt]

4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Yep, they've kept me strung along with a 4-2 record, great drafting, and doing just enough at the QB position right now to make it look like we have a chance to make the playoffs. That's what the FO is doing as of now to keep fans interested. However, they'll need to do better next year with Eason, a drafted QB, or someone else in FA or we'll be a mediocre team from now on.

I know you have said it before - but, what is your "realistic" solution - if you are the GM?

[Yoshinator]

6 minutes ago, Dingus McGirt said:

I know you have said it before - but, what is your "realistic" solution - if you are the GM?

At this point, I would finish the season with Rivers unless he fell off the map. If he does this year, start Eason this year and see what you have. At the end of the year, trade a 3rd for Darnold to compete with Eason for the starting job, or draft a QB in the first two rounds that you like. Re-sign Chad Kelly as a 3rd QB that has a chance to compete since he knows the playbook as well.

 

That gives you Eason,Darnold/drafted QB,Kelly to compete for the starting QB job. That should give us every opportunity to find our starting QB for the future.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

At this point, I would finish the season with Rivers unless he fell off the map. If he does this year, start Eason this year and see what you have. At the end of the year, trade a 3rd for Darnold to compete with Eason for the starting job, or draft a QB in the first two rounds that you like. Re-sign Chad Kelly as a 3rd QB that has a chance to compete since he knows the playbook as well.

 

That gives you Eason, Darnold/drafted QB/Kelly to compete for the starting QB job. That should give us every opportunity to find our starting QB for the future.

I think we will do enough to make the playoffs, not sure how we will do in the playoffs? Rivers is a Vet though and streaky so who knows.

[Yoshinator]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think we will do enough to make the playoffs, not sure how we will do in the playoffs? Rivers is a Vet though and streaky so who knows.

I think it's like 70/30 we make the playoffs at this point. If we beat the Lions, that'll go up a bit more. Next year, is the question though. That's why I want to go for it this year.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, Jared Cisneros said:

I think it's like 70/30 we make the playoffs at this point. If we beat the Lions, that'll go up a bit more. Next year, is the question though. That's why I want to go for it this year.  

Yeah if we beat the Lions I will go 75/25 but I am with you as of today regarding 70/30 which is still good odds. If we lose to the Lions I would knock that down to 50/50. Big game coming up. Rivers may play another year, if not we might even draft another QB, or maybe it will be Eason time. I am still not sold on Eason, I won't be until I see around 7 or 8 games from him.

[chad72]

12 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

This the same Jim Harbaugh that got smacked by Florida in the bowl game last year and hasn’t even gotten his team to a Big 10 championship game appearance (including getting beaten out by Northwestern one year)?

 

Asking for a friend...

 

Some of the better coaches choose to stick around in college because of the control they have and lesser competition with just as much money. Do you think an NFL team would not hire Dabo Swinney or Kirk Ferentz if they were available?

[Myles]

15 hours ago, EastStreet said:

There's just no way to know how much Reich impacts the D. Obviously he approves the game plan though. IMO, either both Reich and Flus are conservative, or Reich is impacting Flus to be more conservative. And I just don't think Flus is conservative looking at his entire history. If you look at his days as DC at the college level, I don't see conservative play. 

It has to fall on Reich as the head coach.   If he didn't like "soft zone" the team wouldn't be doing it.   I would keep Reich for another year or 2 to see if his play calling improves.  He hasn't been bad enough to fire and he's been good enough to keep.  

[Nickster]

14 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Lions are bottom 10 vs the run, and not very good vs the pass either. I have no clue what we'll do.

 

I suspect we will try to run and be ready to throw the rock.  At least this is what I think Reich has stated as his general philosophy and seems to me to be the way he coaches games.

[Dingus McGirt]

2 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

At this point, I would finish the season with Rivers unless he fell off the map. If he does this year, start Eason this year and see what you have. At the end of the year, trade a 3rd for Darnold to compete with Eason for the starting job, or draft a QB in the first two rounds that you like. Re-sign Chad Kelly as a 3rd QB that has a chance to compete since he knows the playbook as well.

 

That gives you Eason,Darnold/drafted QB,Kelly to compete for the starting QB job. That should give us every opportunity to find our starting QB for the future.

Sadly, someone's crush on him may result in Brissett returning.

[NannyMcafee]

If you have doubts about Ballard being the long term GM for this team, you should also have doubts about being a fan of this team long term. 

 

Its obvious Ballard will be here for the next 5+ years to me. Hes done nothing but turn this team into a team that can compete vs ANY team in the NFL. And thats without a franchise QB something 90% of the NFL considers the most important position. 

 

I support his viewpoint of not forcing a franchise QB to fall from the rafters of LOS. 

[danlhart87]

Ballard is here for the long haul 

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, NannyMcafee said:

If you have doubts about Ballard being the long term GM for this team, you should also have doubts about being a fan of this team long term. 

 

Its obvious Ballard will be here for the next 5+ years to me. Hes done nothing but turn this team into a team that can compete vs ANY team in the NFL. And thats without a franchise QB something 90% of the NFL considers the most important position. 

 

I support his viewpoint of not forcing a franchise QB to fall from the rafters of LOS. 

I agree with your take.  And I think it's more likely Ballard will go the " acquire a veteran QB path" versus trading a boatload of picks to move up and try to draft a rookie QB in the top five or so.  Drafting  a prospect like Eason sure but moving way up in the draft with this team I don't see it.  If it turns out that Rivers is not the answer then I think it's more likely he looks at guys like Stafford and Ryan for example.  That said there is no doubt in my mind that Ballard will get another contract.  

[danlhart87]

9 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I agree with your take.  And I think it's more likely Ballard will go the " acquire a veteran QB path" versus trading a boatload of picks to move up and try to draft a rookie QB in the top five or so.  Drafting  a prospect like Eason sure but moving way up in the draft with this team I don't see it.  If it turns out that Rivers is not the answer then I think it's more likely he looks at guys like Stafford and Ryan for example.  That said there is no doubt in my mind that Ballard will get another contract.  

if Packers are serious about Love the best veteran would be Rodgers. 

[EastStreet]

3 hours ago, Myles said:

It has to fall on Reich as the head coach.   If he didn't like "soft zone" the team wouldn't be doing it.   I would keep Reich for another year or 2 to see if his play calling improves.  He hasn't been bad enough to fire and he's been good enough to keep.  

Agreed. At times I feel lulled by the conservative approach on both sides. I'd at least like to be middle of the road (and not bottom of the league) on things like blitzing. It's going to be interesting to see how our D performs as our schedule improves. They really laid an egg in first half of the Bengals game, and that won't fly with better teams.

[EastStreet]

3 hours ago, Nickster said:

 

I suspect we will try to run and be ready to throw the rock.  At least this is what I think Reich has stated as his general philosophy and seems to me to be the way he coaches games.

Jax was bottom 5 vs the run last year, and again this year. We didn't follow that mode game 1. That's why I say I don't have a clue. I'd just like good balance. 50/50 on first down. running on 3rd and short. shots on 2nd and short, etc. Just the basics.

[AZColt11]

Wish this defense had an aggressive style more akin to Pitt.  I think they could excel.

[danlhart87]

9 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I think it's like 70/30 we make the playoffs at this point. If we beat the Lions, that'll go up a bit more. Next year, is the question though. That's why I want to go for it this year.  

This is slow build.

Don't put all your eggs in 1 basket!

 

Even if we don't win it all keep your head up

This team has a bright future 

[NannyMcafee]

9 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I agree with your take.  And I think it's more likely Ballard will go the " acquire a veteran QB path" versus trading a boatload of picks to move up and try to draft a rookie QB in the top five or so.  Drafting  a prospect like Eason sure but moving way up in the draft with this team I don't see it.  If it turns out that Rivers is not the answer then I think it's more likely he looks at guys like Stafford and Ryan for example.  That said there is no doubt in my mind that Ballard will get another contract.  

 

Im dreaming the packers make a mistake and walk away from Roger's. 

 

Roger's with Colts has SB written all over it. 

[danlhart87]

5 minutes ago, NannyMcafee said:

 

Im dreaming the packers make a mistake and walk away from Roger's. 

 

Roger's with Colts has SB written all over it. 

[NannyMcafee]

8 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

 

Please happen

[danlhart87]

I hope he does the discount double check for us one day 

[BleedBlue4Shoe86]

15 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

At this point, I would finish the season with Rivers unless he fell off the map. If he does this year, start Eason this year and see what you have. At the end of the year, trade a 3rd for Darnold to compete with Eason for the starting job, or draft a QB in the first two rounds that you like. Re-sign Chad Kelly as a 3rd QB that has a chance to compete since he knows the playbook as well.

 

That gives you Eason,Darnold/drafted QB,Kelly to compete for the starting QB job. That should give us every opportunity to find our starting QB for the future.

My only disagreement is that I believe you need a veteran QB of some sort in a backup role. Someone like a Fitzpatrick. Eason, Drafted and Kelly is awfully young. Lol

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, BleedBlue4Shoe86 said:

My only disagreement is that I believe you need a veteran QB of some sort in a backup role. Someone like a Fitzpatrick. Eason, Drafted and Kelly is awfully young. Lol

 I disagree we need a veteran QB for one simple reason. We have a QB coach, we have an older presence to teach these guys, as well as an O-Coordinator and HC. I don't want any old QBs on this team possibly starting if our young guys struggle. Next year needs to be a year to find our new franchise QB. Let them take all their bumps and don't waste a spot on the roster with a veteran QB that should never see playing time.

[danlhart87]

28 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

 I disagree we need a veteran QB for one simple reason. We have a QB coach, we have an older presence to teach these guys, as well as an O-Coordinator and HC. I don't want any old QBs on this team possibly starting if our young guys struggle. Next year needs to be a year to find our new franchise QB. Let them take all their bumps and don't waste a spot on the roster with a veteran QB that should never see playing time.

Would you rule out Rodgers in your scenario