Ballard's approach on building Colts

[Imgrandojji]

16 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

I have seen several complaints about Ballard's approach and the lack of success getting to the playoffs.

 

I am firm believer that Grigson set this team back several years with his inability to protect Andrew Luck by fixing the OL. Things got so rough that it costed Luck to retire.

 

The OL has struggled this year but even still Ballard came in and immediately took action helping to rebuild it.

 

Ballard's approach is building from the inside out starting with the trenches which he has helped with tremendously.

 

The idea beyond this is he doesn't want our next franchise QB to be forced into retirement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree that the OL has struggled this year.  I've been utterly unimpressed by Rivers' ability to stay alive in the pocket.  He's got a rocket arm but the dude folds like wet paper whenever someone penetrates the line.  Either goes down immediately or throws a panicked pass that turns into a 50 50 ball or a giveaway.   Dude can't escape if he gets pressured -- like, at all.    If you can't move in the pocket you need to get the ball out of your hands and Rivers is only OK at that, the result is we're putting more pressure on the OL to be perfect than is realistic.

 

Thing is there isn't an OL in the history of the NFL that is NEVER gonna let penetration through.  And against good defenses that can really challenge us in the trenches I just don't see Rivers being the guy to carry us back to the top. 

 

He's a distinct improvement over Brissett in many areas, but Rivers isn't the answer and I hope we're working hard on finding a guy who is.

[Superman]

29 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

I disagree that the OL has struggled this year

 

The main issue is in the run game. 

[chad72]

44 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

He's a distinct improvement over Brissett in many areas, but Rivers isn't the answer and I hope we're working hard on finding a guy who is.

 

Here is the true issue. There will be a few steps backwards before a few steps forward with any new investment at QB or new QB introduced, whether it be Eason or a drafted QB or FA QB, can be for various reasons.

 

If fans expect smooth sailing right off the bat to start off where Rivers left, they will be disappointed, I can guarantee it. Let us say we win the division this year with Rivers, it does not mean we have to jettison Rivers by any means for 2021. Rivers has limitations but with a healthier pass catching corps and a few upgrades to the pass catchers via FA/draft plus a year of familiarity will probably lead to better results next year overall even with another QB signed/drafted. 

 

[CoachLite]

17 hours ago, csmopar said:

Thing is, they’ve not struggled in pass pro, it’s been a struggle in the run game. Which is odd. 

Didn't we replace our offensive line coach? Now, people are complaining that the O-line performance has fallen off? I think the coaching staff would be the first place I would look for problems.

[Rackeen305]

16 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

They could also bring Rivers back and draft QB with the idea of him starting 22

I thought we did this with Eason. I actually like Eason over Lamar Jackson 2.0 (Chad "swag" Kelly)

[r a y s k i]

There is almost no way that Ballard or anyone could have done a better job than what he has done and is doing with the Colts. He has been a top 5 gm in almost every category(draft, fa, cap management) since he came to us. The roster he inherited was awful.

[shasta519]

17 hours ago, John Hammonds said:

I agree on the effect that Luck was taking a beating.  But it wasn't from a lack of trying.  He tried a lot.  Too bad that it wasn't successful.

2012

C Samson Satele

G Mike McGlynn

2013

G Hugh Thornton

C Khaled Holmes

G Joe Reitz

T Gosder Cherilus

2014

G Jack Mewhort

C Jonotthan Harrison

2015

T Denzelle Good

C A. Q. Shipley

2016

C Ryan Kelly

T LeRaven Clark

G Joe Haeg

C Austin Blythe

No matter what he tried, it just didn't work.

 

Donald Thomas as well.

 

By his second year...Grigs had brought in the highest-paid FA RT (Cherilus), signed a FA C (Satele), drafted a G on Day Two (Thornton) and a C in the 4th round (Holmes) and signed another FA who projected to be a starter (Thomas). With a franchise LT already in place...that should have been enough to build a solid OL. 

 

And then he went out and drafted another G in the 2nd round (Mewhort)...who was projected to be able to play RT in the NFL.

 

But ALL of them got hurt...and were out of the league in a few years. Grigs definitely failed to build an OL...but it was not for lack of effort. So I really disagree with this narrative that Grigs somehow ignored the OL. It was combination of bad luck and bad evaluation.

 

It's actually fairly similar to the current WR situation on this team. Lots of injuries and players not reaching their upsides. 

 

[shasta519]

2 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

I disagree that the OL has struggled this year.  I've been utterly unimpressed by Rivers' ability to stay alive in the pocket.  He's got a rocket arm but the dude folds like wet paper whenever someone penetrates the line.  Either goes down immediately or throws a panicked pass that turns into a 50 50 ball or a giveaway.   Dude can't escape if he gets pressured -- like, at all.    If you can't move in the pocket you need to get the ball out of your hands and Rivers is only OK at that, the result is we're putting more pressure on the OL to be perfect than is realistic.

 

Thing is there isn't an OL in the history of the NFL that is NEVER gonna let penetration through.  And against good defenses that can really challenge us in the trenches I just don't see Rivers being the guy to carry us back to the top. 

 

He's a distinct improvement over Brissett in many areas, but Rivers isn't the answer and I hope we're working hard on finding a guy who is.

 

Last year, the OL had an adjusted sack rate of 6%...which ranked 7th in the NFL. This year...it's a bit lower at 5.1%, which is 8th in the NFL. It's been better in that regard...but some improvement was expected going from a QB who near the bottom in TT (time to throw) to a QB who is top 5.

 

But the adjusted yards for RBs has gone from 4.41 yards (12th in the NFL) to 4.01 yards (21st in the NFL). Maybe that's from Mack getting hurt...but I don't think so. They are a bottom 3rd run-blocking team across every stat...and it hasn't passed the eye test. 

 

Compared to the really high standard that has been placed on the OL...they have seemed to "struggled" in some aspects. But  if they aren't struggling...then perhaps the OL has been overrated in the past. 

[shasta519]

2 hours ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

The worst thing is Griggles was a former O-Lineman. You'd think he'd be able to figure it out a little better. 

 

You would think so. But pretty sure Ballard was a WR at Wisconsin...and he has had his own struggles with that position group.

[superrep1967]

19 hours ago, Four2itus said:

Ballard runs thing exactly how I want them run as a fan.....so for me?

 

A+

Agreed

[superrep1967]

3 hours ago, CoachLite said:

Didn't we replace our offensive line coach? Now, people are complaining that the O-line performance has fallen off? I think the coaching staff would be the first place I would look for problems.

I think we need a new o-line coach because with talent he has to work with and the production don't match.  IMO

[Myles]

1 hour ago, shasta519 said:

 

You would think so. But pretty sure Ballard was a WR at Wisconsin...and he has had his own struggles with that position group.

Pittman looks very good.   

[danlhart87]

5 minutes ago, Myles said:

Pittman looks very good.   

The best thing about Pitt coming out if I remember correctly was his hands. He's caught 21 out of 28 so 75%

[crazycolt1]

5 hours ago, Myles said:

To be fair, he has enough money to be set for life.   He's not hurting to pay his electric bill.  

I understand that but I have been fired from a job before. 

Should I have been black balled from ever getting another job in my field? 

 

[shasta519]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Agree.  I think the point of bringing up history seems to be about giving Ballard a bit of a pass under the premise that he started with a bar that was extremely low compared with other new GMs.  That simply isn't true.  From Tobin to Polian, Polian to Grigson, and RG to CB, and throughout the NFL, new GMs inherit about a handful of players from the previous regime.  The rest are either not good enough, are getting too old, or don't fit the new schemes and are jettisoned within about two years. 

 

Ballard did not start off at a lower point than the typical new GM.  He started off at a spot that was common height.  JMO.

 

Most (if not all) GMs turn over the vast majority of NFL rosters in their first few years. Sometimes that process gets expedited when you switch systems...or you have several aging vets and not much young talent due to poor drafts....which was exactly the case for BOTH Grigs and Ballard. 

 

The parallels between the two situations are there...but I think Grigs definitely had it worse (to start...and overall). And while I never liked Grigs...I will absolutely be objective when it comes to these discussion. 

 

The team Grigs inherited was truly awful...they had won 2 games the year before (without Manning). The roster was full of old, expensive vets...including a franchise QB who would be cut in a couple of months...which combined would leave a massive amount of dead cap. And to make matters worse...there was almost no young talent on the team because Polian had botched several drafts in a row. It was a total rebuild...especially as they were transitioning to a 3-4 defense.

 

To his credit (and Pagano's as well)...with the little cap space he had...he got both Mathis and Wayne to come back on reasonable FA deals...and signed Redding. Those guys would play huge roles during the next two seasons.

 

And then Grigs had to use the most valuable asset he would ever have on a franchise QB...for the purpose of replacing the franchise QB who was leaving. And this was in a draft where the pick after the Colts would yield (via trade) the #6 pick, two future 1st rounders and a future 2nd rounder. He didn't have the luxury of trading back for a handful of early picks. 

 

Now drafting Luck was absolutely the correct move in that scenario...no doubt...but it was also a move that Grigs would never get credit for AND one that would take credit (in the eyes of most fans) for everything he would accomplish as GM of those Colts teams...including a 33-15 record over the first three seasons and a 3-3 record in the playoffs (with an AFC Championship appearance). Short of a SB win...Grigs' was doomed to be a villain.

 

And that's basically what happened. Because in the 4th year...Luck got hurt...and even though the Colts still managed to go 8-8 with a bottom two offense...that season was considered a disaster and the pitchforks were out until a change was made.

 

Admittedly, I was one of those people...however...I just think it's a bit ridiculous how we vilify Grigs and deify Ballard now. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CheezyColt]

20 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

The best thing about Pitt coming out if I remember correctly was his hands. He's caught 21 out of 28 so 75%

I posted this link in the Pittman thread, but it directly relates to this.

 

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2020/11/17/21570282/film-room-michael-pittman-jr-is-showing-he-can-be-a-real-weapon-for-the-colts

"Overall, the Colts may have a stud in the making with Pittman Jr. He knows how to separate, is reliable (has caught all 21 catchable balls thrown his way), and is now starting to make big plays. I’m excited to see what he does the next few weeks as the Colts play against a few good teams that have iffy at best defenses."

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, CheezyColt said:

I posted this link in the Pittman thread, but it directly relates to this.

 

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2020/11/17/21570282/film-room-michael-pittman-jr-is-showing-he-can-be-a-real-weapon-for-the-colts

"Overall, the Colts may have a stud in the making with Pittman Jr. He knows how to separate, is reliable (has caught all 21 catchable balls thrown his way), and is now starting to make big plays. I’m excited to see what he does the next few weeks as the Colts play against a few good teams that have iffy at best defenses."

 

Didn't he set off a panic during camp because he dropped a few passes?

[stitches]

20 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

I have seen several complaints about Ballard's approach and the lack of success getting to the playoffs.

 

I am firm believer that Grigson set this team back several years with his inability to protect Andrew Luck by fixing the OL. Things got so rough that it costed Luck to retire.

 

The OL has struggled this year but even still Ballard came in and immediately took action helping to rebuild it.

 

Ballard's approach is building from the inside out starting with the trenches which he has helped with tremendously.

 

The idea beyond this is he doesn't want our next franchise QB to be forced into retirement.

 

I'm a bit late to this thread, but let me put my thoughts on ... zeros and ones...

 

The reality that not many people will tell you about is that over the long run all GMs have very similar success rate with draft picks. Then why give big money to big time GM one might ask? Because it's not just the draft of players that matter. So here we go... 

 

Things I'm impressed with and fully support Ballard on:

- keeping our salary sheet clean - we are still one of the teams with most money to spend in next year's FA. Now some of them will go to players on our own roster that need to be re-signed but still - even that takes money and it beats losing those players because we cannot afford them

- draft strategy- I LOVE the trade backs. Remember how I said above that most GMs in the league have similar success rate with picks in the long run? Well, taking this into account, trading back and acquiring multiple high value picks(multiple seconds for late 1st, multiple seconds for dropping from 3 to 6, etc.) is one of the ways the good GMs actually extract value and beat their competition in the long-run. Not all of those will work out and we might miss on some great talent sometimes, but make no mistake - this is an analytically sound and profitable strategy. Keep doing it CB(except when it comes to drafting QB). 

- I love how we draft for our system. Now, I'm the first to point out my problems with some of the defensive schemes we (used to) employ, but one thing I cannot deny is - Ballard is drafting players that are built to succeed in this system. Again, not all of them will... but in huge majority of times(Hooker for example, being a big exception here) those players are put in a great position to succeed. 

- I love his transparency. This is not really important for the performance of the team, but it serves its own purpose when it comes to communicating with the public about the plans of the team. I think he's been more transparent than many GMs would ever dare to be and he does it all the time. He tells us all the time what he thinks about the team and what he sees as weaknesses and areas that need to be addressed and then he goes and address them. He doesn't hide what the general plan is. It feels good as a fan being let in on the process at least from a birds eye view. 

- FA, I've had my problems with some of his signings, but you cannot argue with the talent acquisition besides the draft. Glow was acquired as a project after being discarded by other teams, Moore - same, Desir, Pascal, Rhodes, Margus Hunt, Mike Mitchell ... those were all MINIMUM(or close to) signings that have played well as rotation players and some of them have even built a very nice resume and gotten extensions from us. I'm not even mentioning the good bargain free agents like Autry or Sheard or Ebron, who IMO were great signings for the money and played well for this team. I love how Ballard fills up the roster with quality rotational players without breaking the bank. Sometimes I wish he would splurge a bit, but overall I'm good with his approach too. 

 

Some negatives: 

- Overall I love the talent level on this team. I think this team is a MUCH MORE talented roster than any of the rosters Luck ever had. I don't love that some of the positions most important for success in football are a huge questionmark long-term with this roster.

-Likely no long-term QB. I don't want to read too much into Ballard's statements, but I would hate to think that he doesn't put the appropriate priority to acquiring our future franchise QB. I'm good with Ballard not drafting a QB high if he doesn't like the ones available, but at some point you will have to show us something. There must be some threshold where impatience will be warranted IMO. QB is the most important position in football and as the GM of the Colts Ballard is responsible for what he puts on the field and what he has in the bulding for the future. He is responsible for getting this team a franchise QB we can win with and part of his job is getting this team into a position to draft/acquire such player. 

-Both EDGE and CB are kind of shaky long-term for the Colts. Both are among the most important positions for success too. Banogu, Turay, Lewis, Basham... all day 2 picks... all still need to show why they should be considered part of the future for this team. Similar with the secondary - Quincy Wilson is gone, Rock has had a somewhat rocky of a 2nd year start too... We still need a great player or two at the position.

 

Overall, I love what Ballard is doing. I love the draft strategy, I love the quality and depth of this roster overall... BUT some of the most deficient areas are among the areas most correlated with winning. If he doesn't pick a great QB, or secure good EDGE and CB prospects in the long run, it will all be for naught. This IMO is part of the reason why we've been more average-ish than a true contender - all our best positions are among the least valuable positions, and all the lacking areas are the most important ones for winning. 

 

The next big step IMO should be addressing long-term QB and a lot will lay on that decision, IMO this will decide whether we are middling team with random stretches of success, or a potential dynasty. Overall his management is very close to how I imagine a dynastic team would handle its business, but yet... again - the most important pieces are still in the air. 

[Scott Pennock]

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

As far as Ballard building the Colts:  He has had to rebuild the defense, because that's what happens when you change schemes.  Going from a fatty 34 to a zone 43 necessitates players with different trait emphasis in just about every position. 

 

So any GM is going to have their defensive draft picks stick around simply because he cleared the cupboard for a new scheme.  Now it appears that he's upgrading from the cupboards he bared to players that are better.  And several of the better players on D were signed because their original team went in a different direction.

 

On offense, by my count, six of the eleven players are players whom he drafted in the past three years, the rest are players he inherited or are someone else's cast offs (only 2 of the 5 Olineman are his draft choices.):  Of those six, only Nelson and Smith, have been the only steady starters on O that are his draft picks. 

 

Mack, Pittman, JT, Hines, Wilkins have been rotational players; most of whom look replaceable (except maybe Pittman).

 

TY, Doyle, Glow, AC, Funchess, Ebron, Luck, Rivers, WR#2 and Slot WRs-of-the-day were players he inherited or signed because they weren't resigned by the team that drafted them.  That's more about "filling gaps" than "building", IMO.

I beg to differ about just because he drafted them they'll stick around. 11th in run defense year 1, 7th in year two and 1st (currently) in year 3.......so the draft picks are making a difference on the field.

 

Our Special Teams units have been ranked top 10 as well, which means the bottom 3rd of the roster consisting of late round draft picks and UDFA's are making a difference too.

 

I'm too lazy to look up pass defense, however, I'd be willing to bet we're better off in year 3 than we were year 1!

[chad72]

2 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

Last year, the OL had an adjusted sack rate of 6%...which ranked 7th in the NFL. This year...it's a bit lower at 5.1%, which is 8th in the NFL. It's been better in that regard...but some improvement was expected going from a QB who near the bottom in TT (time to throw) to a QB who is top 5.

 

But the adjusted yards for RBs has gone from 4.41 yards (12th in the NFL) to 4.01 yards (21st in the NFL). Maybe that's from Mack getting hurt...but I don't think so. They are a bottom 3rd run-blocking team across every stat...and it hasn't passed the eye test. 

 

Compared to the really high standard that has been placed on the OL...they have seemed to "struggled" in some aspects. But  if they aren't struggling...then perhaps the OL has been overrated in the past. 

 

Yeah, adjusted line yards does take into account the opponents, right?

 

Bears, Browns and Ravens are Top 10 Ds vs the run and we struggled to run against them. However, how much of it was the RB like JT missing the holes he is supposed to run through and the play calling like using Hines down the middle early on?

[Superman]

1 minute ago, chad72 said:

 

Yeah, adjusted line yards does take into account the opponents, right?

 

Bears, Browns and Ravens are Top 10 Ds vs the run and we struggled to run against them. However, how much of it was the RB like JT missing the holes he is supposed to run through and the play calling like using Hines down the middle early on?

 

The Pats came out and ran it right down the Ravens faces Sunday night.

[chad72]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The Pats came out and ran it right down the Ravens faces Sunday night.

 

Yeah, I guess personnel matters. 

 

Last year, Brandon Williams, the run stopping NT of the Ravens missed the Browns game and Chubb ran all over them in game 5, you can look it up. Guess who was missing again? Brandon Williams again. Not to mention Calais Campbell missed the game too. If Buckner misses time for us, I am certain we will give up more rushing yards, and even more if Grover Stewart misses time along with him.

[Superman]

32 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Yeah, I guess personnel matters. 

 

Last year, Brandon Williams, the run stopping NT of the Ravens missed the Browns game and Chubb ran all over them in game 5, you can look it up. Guess who was missing again? Brandon Williams again. Not to mention Calais Campbell missed the game too. If Buckner misses time for us, I am certain we will give up more rushing yards, and even more if Grover Stewart misses time along with him.

 

Good points. I didn't realize Williams missed the Pats game. 

 

Matchups matter also. But it's weird that the Colts run game has struggled almost every week. 

[chad72]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Good points. I didn't realize Williams missed the Pats game. 

 

Matchups matter also. But it's weird that the Colts run game has struggled almost every week. 

 

Pats beat the Ravens at their own game using multiple big TEs and fullbacks to establish and continue with their running game also with a running QB. It is like Belichick one upped Harbaugh in this one knowing what was going to work on that day with that weather and personnel.

 

I don't think we used the fullbacks much vs the Ravens. Ravens are the type of team you stay ahead of the sticks due to their pass D being better than their run D. But then, unlike last year, they are not running away from teams offensively due to which the run is a factor against them in all games if their opponents stay patient.

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

Most (if not all) GMs turn over the vast majority of NFL rosters in their first few years. Sometimes that process gets expedited when you switch systems...or you have several aging vets and not much young talent due to poor drafts....which was exactly the case for BOTH Grigs and Ballard. 

 

The parallels between the two situations are there...but I think Grigs definitely had it worse (to start...and overall). And while I never liked Grigs...I will absolutely be objective when it comes to these discussion. 

 

The team Grigs inherited was truly awful...they had won 2 games the year before (without Manning). The roster was full of old, expensive vets...including a franchise QB who would be cut in a couple of months...which combined would leave a massive amount of dead cap. And to make matters worse...there was almost no young talent on the team because Polian had botched several drafts in a row. It was a total rebuild...especially as they were transitioning to a 3-4 defense.

 

To his credit (and Pagano's as well)...with the little cap space he had...he got both Mathis and Wayne to come back on reasonable FA deals...and signed Redding. Those guys would play huge roles during the next two seasons.

 

And then Grigs had to use the most valuable asset he would ever have on a franchise QB...for the purpose of replacing the franchise QB who was leaving. And this was in a draft where the pick after the Colts would yield (via trade) the #6 pick, two future 1st rounders and a future 2nd rounder. He didn't have the luxury of trading back for a handful of early picks. 

 

Now drafting Luck was absolutely the correct move in that scenario...no doubt...but it was also a move that Grigs would never get credit for AND one that would take credit (in the eyes of most fans) for everything he would accomplish as GM of those Colts teams...including a 33-15 record over the first three seasons and a 3-3 record in the playoffs (with an AFC Championship appearance). Short of a SB win...Grigs' was doomed to be a villain.

 

And that's basically what happened. Because in the 4th year...Luck got hurt...and even though the Colts still managed to go 8-8 with a bottom two offense...that season was considered a disaster and the pitchforks were out until a change was made.

 

Admittedly, I was one of those people...however...I just think it's a bit ridiculous how we vilify Grigs and deify Ballard now. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, its simply easier to pick out a villain than to actually think about something. 

 

The entire context of the thread is about Ballard's building of the team.  So it does matter to look at what he started out with, as an objective matter...but not as a constant comparison to RG.

 

Not only did Ballard clean out the cupboards himself on defense because of scheme change, but he also inherited very little on defense because previous defenses were never built through the draft to begin with.  They were made up of mid level and some high profile FAs because Pagano's 34 was a complex defense where rookies could not contribute right away (which is what you want when you have an elite QB from day one.)  There was never really a strategy to build a core; however, the two positions that had a heavy investment in draft capital were precisely the two intelligent places to put a high investment in, OLB (Werner, which didn't work out) and shut down Corner, Vontae.  All other positions could be acquired via FA.  Nothing was left for the new regime because the defense was never built that way.  So when people parrot that shallow narrative about "inheriting a bare cupboard", they don't stop to realize that building a young defense through the draft was never the intent of RG.  When you have an elite QB, always win now. 

 

You can build a defense through the draft for a 43 zone.  Its easier for a rookie contract player to learn.  Corroborated by both Ballard and Dungy.

 

OTOH, Ballard inherited on offense, probably the 4 MOST IMPORTANT pieces.  QB, LT, #1WR, and C.  RBs and WRs, and TEs can contribute right away as rookies, and Gs and RTs can be found via FA.  Ballard inherited a well stocked cupboard on offense (relative to most new GMs), because that's where the draft capital was put, and put into the expensive pieces...by intent. 

 

Now, its falling apart a bit due to age and Luck's retirement.  We'll see if Ballard can stock the cupboard again with the expensive pieces necessary to field a playoff caliber O.

 

Ballard seems to be building from the inside out.  Fine.  The problem is that he has spent high capital on less important pieces, which is nice thing to have, but it leaves the team a bit skimpy on premium capital to fill the premium positions.

 

He's probably going to have to have some luck, and get round 1 talent in round 2 at one of those spots.

 

Not that Ballard can't do it, but having more high capital to get your LT, take the top off WR, and now QB would be nice.  I think just about everybody now sees the dilemma.

[ColtStrong2013]

20 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Really?   Grigson has spoken about it many times?    I’m asking because I’m not aware if that.   I haven’t seen a link posted here where Grigson has spoken about his time here.

 

Can you point me in the right direction?   I’d like to read that.   Thanks....  

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sportingnews.com/us/amp/nfl/news/indianapolis-colts-ryan-grigson-general-manager-nfl-draft-picks/l4q0qgl10yu21lu2rn5o5c5n1

 

“In his first interview since he was fired by the Colts in January 2017, Grigson said he is most proud of the 52-34 record Indianapolis posted while he was at the helm. Grigson also has spent plenty of time reflecting on the mistakes that led to his ousting. While a number of his roster moves failed to make the impact hoped, Grigson believes his biggest error did not come from personnel decisions, but rather his shortcomings as a person.”

you’re welcome... also, one of your shortcomings as a poster is being condescending toward other posters...

[ColtStrong2013]

7 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sportingnews.com/us/amp/nfl/news/indianapolis-colts-ryan-grigson-general-manager-nfl-draft-picks/l4q0qgl10yu21lu2rn5o5c5n1

 

“In his first interview since he was fired by the Colts in January 2017, Grigson said he is most proud of the 52-34 record Indianapolis posted while he was at the helm. Grigson also has spent plenty of time reflecting on the mistakes that led to his ousting. While a number of his roster moves failed to make the impact hoped, Grigson believes his biggest error did not come from personnel decisions, but rather his shortcomings as a person.”

you’re welcome... also, one of your shortcomings as a poster is being condescending toward other posters...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ncregister.com/news/former-indianapolis-colts-gm-enjoying-ride-to-playoffs-with-the-seattle-seahawks%3famp

 

here’s another

You had a successful tenure with the Colts that included a massive turnaround and three playoff appearances in five years. What have you learned from that and the experiences of the past few years?

 

“I learned that I need to be a better listener — to press “pause” and just listen. I’ve kind of always ridden on my passion and adrenaline to get points across, so at times I haven’t been receptive to what people were telling me.”

 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Yeah, its simply easier to pick out a villain than to actually think about something. 

 

What about identifying the villain after having thought about the matter carefully?

 

 

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What about identifying the villain after having thought about the matter carefully?

 

 

Not really possible.  A villain is a character.  Kind of perpetual identification of someone to serve an emotional purpose as its underpinning.  Not really consistent with the notion of careful thought.

 

 

[Boondoggle]

On 11/16/2020 at 5:39 PM, danlhart87 said:

New QB in draft even 1st round isn't guaranteed to be a star.

 

Ballard is far more likely to bring Rivers back or take shot on skilled vet like Rodgers if available than taking chance on rookie. 

 

I know sometimes you have to take that leap of faith.

 

I believe the Colts will be the party that moves on from Rivers this offseason.  My reasoning is the value of having youth at QB and the controlled cost.  That window you get with a young QB on his first contract is extremely valuable to the GM where he can load up other positions and even consider some FAs he won't be able to bring in later.

 

Rivers cost $25M this year to the cap.  He was available and Ballard knew if he could get a QB he liked in the draft Rivers would buy him time.  In the draft he took Eason so I presume that's a QB he really liked and he's not going to want to waste too many of those first contract seasons.  The fact Rivers bought Eason a redshirted first year I think is enough.

 

Now there is a chance they don't like Eason and we won't be aware of that until next draft when the moves show that.  But even if that is the case the plan would flip to where they are looking QB early and I would guess let that draftee and Eason duke it out in camp.  So either way I'd say there's a very high chance this is Rivers' last hurrah and chance to do something which benefits both parties because the Colts are definitely a better team with him behind center this year.

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Not really possible.  A villain is a character.  Kind of perpetual identification of someone to serve an emotional purpose as its underpinning.  Not really consistent with the notion of careful thought.

 

Oh okay, makes perfect sense, thanks.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

Most (if not all) GMs turn over the vast majority of NFL rosters in their first few years. Sometimes that process gets expedited when you switch systems...or you have several aging vets and not much young talent due to poor drafts....which was exactly the case for BOTH Grigs and Ballard. 

 

The parallels between the two situations are there...but I think Grigs definitely had it worse (to start...and overall). And while I never liked Grigs...I will absolutely be objective when it comes to these discussion. 

 

The team Grigs inherited was truly awful...they had won 2 games the year before (without Manning). The roster was full of old, expensive vets...including a franchise QB who would be cut in a couple of months...which combined would leave a massive amount of dead cap. And to make matters worse...there was almost no young talent on the team because Polian had botched several drafts in a row. It was a total rebuild...especially as they were transitioning to a 3-4 defense.

 

To his credit (and Pagano's as well)...with the little cap space he had...he got both Mathis and Wayne to come back on reasonable FA deals...and signed Redding. Those guys would play huge roles during the next two seasons.

 

And then Grigs had to use the most valuable asset he would ever have on a franchise QB...for the purpose of replacing the franchise QB who was leaving. And this was in a draft where the pick after the Colts would yield (via trade) the #6 pick, two future 1st rounders and a future 2nd rounder. He didn't have the luxury of trading back for a handful of early picks. 

 

Now drafting Luck was absolutely the correct move in that scenario...no doubt...but it was also a move that Grigs would never get credit for AND one that would take credit (in the eyes of most fans) for everything he would accomplish as GM of those Colts teams...including a 33-15 record over the first three seasons and a 3-3 record in the playoffs (with an AFC Championship appearance). Short of a SB win...Grigs' was doomed to be a villain.

 

And that's basically what happened. Because in the 4th year...Luck got hurt...and even though the Colts still managed to go 8-8 with a bottom two offense...that season was considered a disaster and the pitchforks were out until a change was made.

 

Admittedly, I was one of those people...however...I just think it's a bit ridiculous how we vilify Grigs and deify Ballard now. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grigs was perhaps the LUCKIEST GM ever. Had Andrew Luck completely healthy his 1st 3 seasons, without Luck we would've stunk and everyone knows it with the rosters he was building. Had Ballard had a healthy Luck every season so far his record would be outstanding and I would go as far to say we could even win the SB with Luck now. Ballard has built an O.Line and a good defense something Grigs never did.

[SteelCityColt]

I don’t think Grigson did himself many favours with how he comported himself. I think 2012 went to his head a bit. 
 

Compare to say Pagano, and even the most ardent critics tend to recognise he’s a stand up dude.

 

Being nice doesn’t make you better “at football”, but it does give you more leeway with people.

[csmopar]

8 hours ago, CoachLite said:

Didn't we replace our offensive line coach? Now, people are complaining that the O-line performance has fallen off? I think the coaching staff would be the first place I would look for problems.

Yep

[chad72]

27 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

I don’t think Grigson did himself many favours with how he comported himself. I think 2012 went to his head a bit. 
 

Compare to say Pagano, and even the most ardent critics tend to recognise he’s a stand up dude.

 

Being nice doesn’t make you better “at football”, but it does give you more leeway with people.

 

Pagano's stints at Baltimore and Chicago as DC shows me that given the talent, that guy can coach D. It is a pity it is being wasted in Chicago. It also tells me that Grigson did not provide the defensive talent (draft and FA) that Pagano needed to make his system work against good to elite teams OR they were not on the same page as to what Pagano and the Colts really needed on defense to take that next step thus being more reliant on Andrew Luck for the W-L record.

 

Ballard and Eberflus seem to have gotten most things right than wrong on that defensive front, IMO. Since there wasn't enough premium capital to invest in a highly rated QB in the draft (or because the draft picks were too valuable to give them up too early in the building of the team), the Rivers signing happened. Thus we are a division contender and have a few steps to go to become a SB contender, IMO.

[Behle]

Old saying in coaching. “It’s not the X’s and the O’s but the Jimmy’s and the Joe’s “ that what makes you a good coach. 

[Two_pound]

People complaining about the performance of this offensive line this year, did you see the Bears yet this year(did you guys miss the the Bear-Colt game?) Watching the Bears last night neither one of their tackles is a division 1 talent let alone nfl. Ballard, again, has done a masterful job building this team, keep it up Chris!

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Oh okay, makes perfect sense, thanks.

 

Its not my first rodeo here, nor the first thread, and almost a perpetual pattern of a threads actually, about Ballard somehow inevitably including quite a bit of a discussion about Grigson. 

 

I thought villain was an interesting caricature.  After 4 years removed, that there are still comments that explain a persons opinion that the team is not as far along as they thought it should be by now (their opinion not mine) being the result of Ballard having such a deep hole to climb out of that was left him by the previous guy.

 

And then when its brought up that the previous guy gave him a franchise QB, the retirement of that franchise QB three years removed from the previous guy is somehow still the previous guy's fault.  

 

It happens a lot BTW, not just in this thread about Ballard.

 

I though villain appropriately described it.  Making up a caricature to help explain everything bad that's happened to our favorite GM as a way to not accept the results that clear thinking would produce.

 

Ballard just can't get away from that villain.  Even after 4 years. 

[chad72]

52 minutes ago, Behle said:

Old saying in coaching. “It’s not the X’s and the O’s but the Jimmy’s and the Joe’s “ that what makes you a good coach. 

 

Ain't that the truth.

[DougDew]

5 hours ago, stitches said:

I don't want to read too much into Ballard's statements, but I would hate to think that he doesn't put the appropriate priority to acquiring our future franchise QB.

Given that you said that you like his transparency, what do you think he thinks? 

 

My opinion is that I don't think that a GM saying something like, "you can't win in this league at a high level without a franchise QB" is an extreme position to take.  If he thought so, why not say it?

 

Saying that doesn't mean that every draft you're a big threat to trade up to get one.  Saying it is sort of obvious.  In fact, saying it every year could have its advantages as a strategic smoke screen.

 

So do you think he means what he says or not?