Ballard's LONG plan to build a "solid" football team

[bluephantom87]

I will start off by saying I think Ballard is a good gm. Pulls no punches, a straight shooter and gives candid interviews to the media.(which is why they love him) He has built a good team in Indy mostly via the draft by trading down (passing on some true playmakers in the process) and by amassing additional picks. Take away Big Q and DL who turned into top tier players at their positions with Hines, Taylor and Pittman showing great potential (Mack before injury) his draft over the YEARS has brought in mostly solid players with a lot of hidden disappointments.

 

Whether that's due to injury (some already had a history in college) or simply not being able to compete at the next level IMO Ballard's draft record is mixed. Add in some low cost 2nd tier FAs with the exception of Buckner (who is a beast) you have the Colts team in a nutshell. Good enough to make a playoff push but not good enough to win the now tougher division or be a true SB contender ESPECIALLY in the loaded AFC. The team is always nicely under the cap with a chance to upgrade if necessary. Even with Luck (who Ballard said it's not about one man) never surrounded him with top flight weapons on offense. More mid tier type receivers because TY was already here. Hell Luck made Ebron look good who was considered a bust prior to Indy.

 

You have the Chiefs, Bills, Titans, Ravens, Steelers (who we can never beat), even the talented Browns loading up and jockeying for that top spot and that's not including the up and coming Dolphins. Maybe a year or two off but the Chargers, Raiders and name one soon either Cincy or the Jags will be in the mix because of the qb. Let's not forget about the Patriots who will not stand still and have already addressed their needs in free agency while having their top defensive players come back who opted out last year.

 

Let's spend a little money to upgrade (did not like the Autry loss) on some top tier FAs to plug some holes (wr and on the front seven ESPECIALLY edge) so we can TRULY compete for a Lombardi and get off this 10 year plan... Go Colts!!!!

[jshipp23]

It will be time for Leonard and Nelson to retire by time this process is done...Year 5, 1 playoff win and still far behind the legitimate contenders...

[Nickster]

Yeah, one thing about Ballard's drafts is that the "successes" are generally at non-premium postions.  You are going to have a higher hit rate on your picks if you draft non-premium positions with premium pics.  For isntance, Q.  I am glad we drafted Q when we did, but the bottom line is that you have a much higher rate of "hitting" on picks at postions like G, C, RT, LB (not 3/4 OLBs, RB, Nose or 1 Tech than you are going to have if you draft WR, QB, CB, EDGE, LT, so since we've spent a lot of high draft picks at LG, FS (with Hooker who I think was tragically underrated here; he was a really really good player for a while), RB, RT, I think people are a little over bullish on CBs drafts (even though I think they are really really good overall.)

 

He has not had near the success drafting the premium positions.  EDGE has been pretty busty and there has been signifcant capital spent on it.  We have seen quite clearly that we could have drafted a few recievers over Campbell even if he hadn't been hurt.  Pitt, I like him, but he's not setting the world on fire and isn't a polished route runner which was surprising.  THere is still potential here, but I doubt either player is ever going to reach the level of a significant number of WR drafted after them.

 

So what  I am saying is (and this isn't an original thought, I read it somewhere) is that the Colts still have many holes and they are at postitions that are the most difficult to hit on, so when CB starts spending the high draft picks on premium positions, it is likely that his "success" rate will fall.  In other words, we have done a great job at drafting the easiest positions to draft.  We are very good, but to reach the next level, I agree with the OP that we are going to need to hit on the premium postions better than we have.

[jvan1973]

If Luck didn't retire,  the team would have had much more success under Ballard

[r a y s k i]

I think people tend to forget how bad the team was overall when CB took over

[Four2itus]

The title says "Long term". That is exactly what he is doing. This is a very young roster. I don't see failure, and I don't see mediocrity. I see continued growth and success. The stars have to align for every single SB team. This Colts team will get it's chance. 

[BlackTiger]

I wonder if they are waiting to see how Wentz does before committing money to outside free agents.  I know he has never been super aggressive about this but we have not gotten past the elite teams in the AFC either.

 

I think they might have to take more risks to take the next step

[r a y s k i]

6 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

The title says "Long term". That is exactly what he is doing. This is a very young roster. I don't see failure, and I don't see mediocrity. I see continued growth and success. The stars have to align for every single SB team. This Colts team will get it's chance. 

I totally agree, I considered our team when CB took over, as one of the worst in the league, without Luck 100%.

 

Not many teams have managed to turn it around like we did in recent memory.

[Colts1324]

I think it's fair to express concern, especially this FA. He said he would target the top tier guys when he thinks we have the team to compete and they are a FIT. We are there. I mean he traded a 1st and paid Buckner last year a HUGE contract. Glad he did, but it's okay to do that in FA too if they are a fit & it doesn't require draft capital. 
 

Then again, he might be in the works with a couple of really solid players. 
 

If we sign Fuller or Golloday and sign a TE/Ertz trade, we are instantly all very happy. 
 

We will get a solid CB or two in FA + Tell(I would imagine). I'm only truly worried about EDGE & pass rush. That's legit the top reason Tampa won the SB IMO. 

[Vader]

30 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

If Luck didn't retire,  the team would have had much more success under Ballard

Bingo

 

[bluephantom87]

28 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

The title says "Long term". That is exactly what he is doing. This is a very young roster. I don't see failure, and I don't see mediocrity. I see continued growth and success. The stars have to align for every single SB team. This Colts team will get it's chance. 

By no means am I saying it's a failure because Ballard has the young team in a solid place right now and I think Carson will help speed up the process to get this team to elite status ( hoping anyway) but todays gms are coming out very aggressive flipping rosters and becoming contenders quickly. At some point you have to start upgrading and being all in to hoist that trophy because other teams are getting better too. Just adding Carson a top flight pass catcher or a edge rusher or two that can bring some heat will do wonders for this team.

[bluephantom87]

49 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

If Luck didn't retire,  the team would have had much more success under Ballard

 

Of course he made a bad roster look good.

[danlhart87]

Ballard is building the Colts the correct way

Patience is key

[Mackrel829]

42 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

I wonder if they are waiting to see how Wentz does before committing money to outside free agents.  I know he has never been super aggressive about this but we have not gotten past the elite teams in the AFC either.

 

I think they might have to take more risks to take the next step

 

I agree with that final statement.

 

However, I'd also say that Ballard has certainly been willing to take risks when he has felt that it's a risk worth taking. He traded for Buckner, he traded for Wentz, he traded up for Taylor. There's a fine line between taking a risk and being reckless. I'm happy that Ballard tends toward (but by no means remains exclusively on) the safer side of that line.

 

With that being said, I think there were one or two risks out there in free agency this year that I would have been happy with Ballard taking. If the Colts are genuinely going to compete for a Superbowl with the core of this roster, it is going to require Ballard to take some additional risks. I hope that he is willing to take those risks when the opportunities arise, and I'm pretty confident that he will.

[ztboiler]

Ballard is rigorous about performance delta and contribution alignment with contract.  It’s not very entertaining in the early days of the off-season...but he does exactly what he says he will do.  And he pays premium guys like Buckner the premium they deserve...just as he will Leonard and Q.

 

Most of the guys flying off the board offer rather little performance delta at 15M per year above the guys he’s getting ready to pay 5M per year or less in a buyers market...

[ColtJax]

Any long term goal has to have short term goals as well. It's nice to "grow your own", but winning teams also strike with FA's too. No reason why we couldn't fill holes for the short term while building for the long term..

[Superman]

28 minutes ago, bluephantom87 said:

todays gms are coming out very aggressive flipping rosters and becoming contenders quickly

 

Like who?

[jshipp23]

29 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Like who?

49ers, Browns, Bucs....to name a few...Pats, Saints, and Seahawks are always aggressive as well...

[NewColtsFan]

41 minutes ago, ColtJax said:

Any long term goal has to have short term goals as well. It's nice to "grow your own", but winning teams also strike with FA's too. No reason why we couldn't fill holes for the short term while building for the long term..

Short term deals are not as frequent in the first few days of free agency.    The first few deals are dominated by long term deals.

 

Ballard typically signs players after the first few days concentrating on short term deals, 1-3 years.    So it would seem he is somewhat following an acceptable pattern from what you laid out. 

[shasta519]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Like who?

 

I don't know we mean by quickly...but Lynch, Beane, Robinson and Snead all flipped poor rosters into teams that made the SB/conference championship within a few seasons. And none of them inherited a true franchise QB to do it (unless we count Goff as a franchise QB).

 

SF: 2-14 the year before Lynch was hired. Inherits nothing at QB and trades for Jimmy G. Went to the SB in the third season. Definitely a contender (even with Jimmy G) if they can stay healthy.

 

BUF: 7-9 the year before Beane was hired. Inherits Tyrod Taylor at QB and trades up to draft Allen...in the AFCG by 4th season. Definitely a contender right now.

 

TEN: 3-13 the year before Robinson showed up. Eventually replaces the bust Mariota with Tannehill...in the AFCG by 4th season. Definitely a contender right now. 

 

LAR: 4-12 in 2016. Kroenke finally fires Fisher and Snead hires McVay and makes several aggressive moves...in the SB in two seasons. Possibly a contender with Stafford, but definitely a playoff team. Snead has the caveat that he was already there, but it was a very quick rebuild from the Fisher era.

 

It's definitely not common (only a handful of GMs), but not many teams are true contenders anyways in any given season. But people definitely put Ballard in the above company...many put him above those GMs. But I think it's fair to point out that they all built contenders in a shorter amount of time (with more success)...and have made their share of aggressive moves.

 

[GoColts8818]

2 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

If Luck didn't retire,  the team would have had much more success under Ballard

It amazes me how many people just over look that “little” detail because it doesn’t support their narrative.  

[jshipp23]

Cardinals have also been very agressive...I bet they make a major leap this year..

[Zoltan]

21 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

I don't know we mean by quickly...but Lynch, Beane, Robinson and Snead all flipped poor rosters into teams that made the SB/conference championship within a few seasons. And none of them inherited a true franchise QB to do it (unless we count Goff as a franchise QB).

 

SF: 2-14 the year before Lynch was hired. Inherits nothing at QB and trades for Jimmy G. Went to the SB in the third season. Definitely a contender (even with Jimmy G) if they can stay healthy.

 

BUF: 7-9 the year before Beane was hired. Inherits Tyrod Taylor at QB and trades up to draft Allen...in the AFCG by 4th season. Definitely a contender right now.

 

TEN: 3-13 the year before Robinson showed up. Eventually replaces the bust Mariota with Tannehill...in the AFCG by 4th season. Definitely a contender right now. 

 

LAR: 4-12 in 2016. Kroenke finally fires Fisher and Snead hires McVay and makes several aggressive moves...in the SB in two seasons. Possibly a contender with Stafford, but definitely a playoff team. Snead has the caveat that he was already there, but it was a very quick rebuild from the Fisher era.

 

It's definitely not common (only a handful of GMs), but not many teams are true contenders anyways in any given season. But people definitely put Ballard in the above company...many put him above those GMs. But I think it's fair to point out that they all built contenders in a shorter amount of time (with more success)...and have made their share of aggressive moves.

 

 

I mean which one of these had to switch coaches after year 1, then had the franchise QB retire right before the start of the season.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, jshipp23 said:

49ers, Browns, Bucs....to name a few...Pats, Saints, and Seahawks are always aggressive as well...

 

Gonna address Niners and Browns in a different post, but Jason Licht has been the Bucs GM for seven years. They didn't make the playoffs for the first six seasons. Let's scratch him off the list.

 

Edit: I thought the Browns were included somewhere else. The Browns have one good season and now they're contenders? They weren't overly aggressive last offseason, by the way. They added a decent TE and a LT. The Browns are a shoulder shrug until further notice. They also have had double the amount of cap space the Colts have had.

[aReggie7]

44 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

I don't know we mean by quickly...but Lynch, Beane, Robinson and Snead all flipped poor rosters into teams that made the SB/conference championship within a few seasons. And none of them inherited a true franchise QB to do it (unless we count Goff as a franchise QB).

 

SF: 2-14 the year before Lynch was hired. Inherits nothing at QB and trades for Jimmy G. Went to the SB in the third season. Definitely a contender (even with Jimmy G) if they can stay healthy.

 

BUF: 7-9 the year before Beane was hired. Inherits Tyrod Taylor at QB and trades up to draft Allen...in the AFCG by 4th season. Definitely a contender right now.

 

TEN: 3-13 the year before Robinson showed up. Eventually replaces the bust Mariota with Tannehill...in the AFCG by 4th season. Definitely a contender right now. 

 

LAR: 4-12 in 2016. Kroenke finally fires Fisher and Snead hires McVay and makes several aggressive moves...in the SB in two seasons. Possibly a contender with Stafford, but definitely a playoff team. Snead has the caveat that he was already there, but it was a very quick rebuild from the Fisher era.

 

It's definitely not common (only a handful of GMs), but not many teams are true contenders anyways in any given season. But people definitely put Ballard in the above company...many put him above those GMs. But I think it's fair to point out that they all built contenders in a shorter amount of time (with more success)...and have made their share of aggressive moves.

 

 

The 49ers are below .500 while Lynch has been the GM. They had a great year in in 2019 with an appearance in the Superbowl but have been below .500 in the other 3 years. Plus, if Ballard managed the cap that caused them to decide to trade someone like DeForest Buckner would people still be praising his aggressiveness? 

 

I think Beane has done a great job in Buffalo and he did well to trade up in the 2018 draft to get Allen. However, had Luck not returned in 2018 and retired that spring we could easily have seen the Colts ascend like this. It's easy to forget how bad the timing of Luck's retirement was. The 2018 draft could have resulted in drafting a QB and not trading back for Nelson.

 

Jon Robinson has done really well in TEN but he still hasn't put together a roster that worries me despite their success. Plus, their offense relies heavily on Derrick Henry He is a great player but football is not kind to running backs as they get in their late 20s. He is likely to slow down in the next year or two and that will be a challenge for the Titans. (assuming it happens) Tannerhill is good but that team really needs Henry playing like he has been. Also, I've seen the Colts use the approach of making flashy signings and being aggressive in free agency when Grigson was here. I may not agree with every decision Ballard makes but I am perfectly fine with his level of aggressiveness in free agency.

 

Les Snead has been the GM of the Rams since 2012. Are you going to ignore the years from 2012-2016 which was prior to McVay becoming the head coach? Most of the key players on that Superbowl team (Gurley, Donald) were drafted prior to McVay being hired.

 

[chad72]

42 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

I don't know we mean by quickly...but Lynch, Beane, Robinson and Snead all flipped poor rosters into teams that made the SB/conference championship within a few seasons. And none of them inherited a true franchise QB to do it (unless we count Goff as a franchise QB).

 

SF: 2-14 the year before Lynch was hired. Inherits nothing at QB and trades for Jimmy G. Went to the SB in the third season. Definitely a contender (even with Jimmy G) if they can stay healthy.

 

BUF: 7-9 the year before Beane was hired. Inherits Tyrod Taylor at QB and trades up to draft Allen...in the AFCG by 4th season. Definitely a contender right now.

 

TEN: 3-13 the year before Robinson showed up. Eventually replaces the bust Mariota with Tannehill...in the AFCG by 4th season. Definitely a contender right now. 

 

LAR: 4-12 in 2016. Kroenke finally fires Fisher and Snead hires McVay and makes several aggressive moves...in the SB in two seasons. Possibly a contender with Stafford, but definitely a playoff team. Snead has the caveat that he was already there, but it was a very quick rebuild from the Fisher era.

 

It's definitely not common (only a handful of GMs), but not many teams are true contenders anyways in any given season. But people definitely put Ballard in the above company...many put him above those GMs. But I think it's fair to point out that they all built contenders in a shorter amount of time (with more success)...and have made their share of aggressive moves.

 

 

 

Can you tell me the key FA moves they all made? The difference could lie there, hence the question.

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, bluephantom87 said:

 

Of course he made a bad roster look good.

This isn't the same roster that Luck played with.    

[open window]

I wish he could have played with this roster 

[coming on strong]

2 hours ago, rayski said:

I think people tend to forget how bad the team was overall when CB took over

the problem is colts gave off the illusion they were good lucks first 3 years .   the division was so bad lucks first 3 years only the texans were solid and had zero passing game .  We basically had 5 wins a year from that , plus luck carried the team .  We were barley winning games sometimes by a lucky play or two .  It was fools gold and made people believe we were a good football team . 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, shasta519 said:

 

I don't know we mean by quickly...but Lynch, Beane, Robinson and Snead all flipped poor rosters into teams that made the SB/conference championship within a few seasons. And none of them inherited a true franchise QB to do it (unless we count Goff as a franchise QB).

 

SF: 2-14 the year before Lynch was hired. Inherits nothing at QB and trades for Jimmy G. Went to the SB in the third season. Definitely a contender (even with Jimmy G) if they can stay healthy.

 

BUF: 7-9 the year before Beane was hired. Inherits Tyrod Taylor at QB and trades up to draft Allen...in the AFCG by 4th season. Definitely a contender right now.

 

TEN: 3-13 the year before Robinson showed up. Eventually replaces the bust Mariota with Tannehill...in the AFCG by 4th season. Definitely a contender right now. 

 

LAR: 4-12 in 2016. Kroenke finally fires Fisher and Snead hires McVay and makes several aggressive moves...in the SB in two seasons. Possibly a contender with Stafford, but definitely a playoff team. Snead has the caveat that he was already there, but it was a very quick rebuild from the Fisher era.

 

It's definitely not common (only a handful of GMs), but not many teams are true contenders anyways in any given season. But people definitely put Ballard in the above company...many put him above those GMs. But I think it's fair to point out that they all built contenders in a shorter amount of time (with more success)...and have made their share of aggressive moves.

 

 

At a certain point the "Luck retired" excuse will run out of mileage. For the purposes of this conversation, I think it's relevant.

 

Ballard took over in 2017. In 2018, the Colts won 10 games and a playoff game. Kind of seems like he was on the same track as Lynch, Beane, and Robinson, if not ahead of their pace. Then Luck retired. Everyone has different circumstances, everyone has challenges to overcome, but it's not like the Colts have been in the basement.

 

The Niners had one good year, one playoff appearance. The Bills have had one good year, one playoff appearance. The Titans have made the playoffs two years in a row, they look like a good team and have had a good offseason so far. 

 

I think it's important to recognize that teams pop on the radar all the time, win a playoff game or two, sometimes even get to the SB. And then they fade into obscurity. Sometimes they plummet to the bottom. The 2014-15 Colts were supposed to be the next big thing, and we know how that went. The Falcons went to the SB. A couple years ago, it was the Bears, and the Chargers.

 

If we're counting a couple playoffs appearances and a flash in the pan season as being a "contender," I don't see the Colts as being in a different tier than those teams. Maybe give the Niners a bonus for the SB appearance (they're 2 for 3 in playoff games since Lynch took over, all in one season), but none of these teams are separating themselves from pack, or proving themselves to be worthy of imitation. 

 

I think it's cheap to include the Rams. Les Snead has been the GM since 2012. He almost got fired. Some of the best players on their SB team pre-dated the so-called regime change when Fisher was fired: Gurley, Donald, Littleton, Joyner, Barron, Brockers, even Goff.

 

It's fair to want the Colts to be more aggressive. It's a foul to act like the Colts aren't doing a good job of building a good roster that can contend. 

[shasta519]

2 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

It amazes me how many people just over look that “little” detail because it doesn’t support their narrative.  

 

The narrative that looks at overall success over time and doesn't make excuses. The Luck thing has become a sort of rallying cry (nevermind that his absence in 2017 directly led to a ton of draft capital that helped them build the team).

 

But all you are saying here is that Ballard's overall was dependent n Luck. And if you put Luck on other teams in the league...I am sure many GMs would have a lot of success too. But how many GMs have been able to inherit a franchise QB like Luck? It rarely happens...they all have to overcome that position in one way or another. 

 

Ballard himself said (when he took the job) that it wasn't about one person. He set that expectation that it wasn't about Luck.

 

Putting Luck back on the current roster is purely hypothetical anyways. If he doesn't retire in 2019 and they are better, they don't have the #13 pick to deal for DeFo. Who knows what offseason looks like then. 

 

You can't just remove Rivers and put Luck in his place last season. 

 

I think the only "narrative" here is people wanting to see more success now that we are heading into the 5th season. And now that we are two full offseasons from the Luck retiring, we will get to see this once and for all. At least that's my approach.

[ColtJax]

The Rams won't have a 1st round pick for 6 straight years and are in salary cap Hell. They better win now, because their window will slam shut soon..

 

Having said that, I can see not going crazy. But a couple big pieces would be night. How about a good corner and edge rusher, something to get the fans excited..

[Four2itus]

36 minutes ago, Superman said:

It's fair to want the Colts to be more aggressive. It's a foul to act like the Colts aren't doing a good job of building a good roster that can contend. 

^^^this

[BlackTiger]

1 hour ago, GoColts8818 said:

It amazes me how many people just over look that “little” detail because it doesn’t support their narrative.  

How is that even relevant?  Luck has been gone for two years, they picked his replacement.  Are people going to keep saying that next year too?  Its time to forget about luck and worry about what we have.  Its been time for a while now

 

They may or may not have gone further with Andrew, you cant say they would done more as though its a fact.  

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, ColtJax said:

Having said that, I can see not going crazy. But a couple big pieces would be night. How about a good corner and edge rusher, something to get the fans excited..

 

I don't really care about getting the fans excited.

 

There were only two edge rushers I was interested in -- Okwara and Hendrickson -- and they both got way more money than I thought they should have. Even Carl Lawson, who everyone expects to be the next Chandler Jones (and he won't be), got $15m/year. No thanks.

 

There are still some decent corners available, but I don't know if they fit the staff's profile for size, length, and tackling ability. 

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, bluephantom87 said:

 

Of course he made a bad roster look good.

The bad roster wasn’t Ballard’s.   He inherited  a mess and it wasn’t going to get turned around in one season.   
 

Ballard had one unimpressive roster, hus first year, 2017.    The other three rosters have been much improved playoff caliber rosters.  We made the playoffs two out of three years, and the one year we didn’t, was the year Kuck retired. 

[BlackTiger]

8 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 We made the playoffs two out of three years, and the one year we didn’t, was the year Kuck retired. 

Making the playoffs isn't really a high standard(the division has two bottom feeders too). Its about being able to beat teams like the Chiefs or Steelers to me.  I don't think they are getting to the Qb enough to be confident in that.

 

You can say we are impatient, I would say its been a good while since the team was a contender.  I guess he feels its not the year to spend

[GoColts8818]

50 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

The narrative that looks at overall success over time and doesn't make excuses. The Luck thing has become a sort of rallying cry (nevermind that his absence in 2017 directly led to a ton of draft capital that helped them build the team).

 

But all you are saying here is that Ballard's overall was dependent n Luck. And if you put Luck on other teams in the league...I am sure many GMs would have a lot of success too. But how many GMs have been able to inherit a franchise QB like Luck? It rarely happens...they all have to overcome that position in one way or another. 

 

Ballard himself said (when he took the job) that it wasn't about one person. He set that expectation that it wasn't about Luck.

 

Putting Luck back on the current roster is purely hypothetical anyways. If he doesn't retire in 2019 and they are better, they don't have the #13 pick to deal for DeFo. Who knows what offseason looks like then. 

 

You can't just remove Rivers and put Luck in his place last season. 

 

I think the only "narrative" here is people wanting to see more success now that we are heading into the 5th season. And now that we are two full offseasons from the Luck retiring, we will get to see this once and for all. At least that's my approach.

Accounting for not having the guy you built the team around isn’t an excuse it’s a franchise alternating change that normally sets franchises back five to 10 years unless you end up with one of the top picks in draft in the first year as much as people don’t want to hear that.  
 

Ballard has had a different opening day starting QB every year he’s been GM.  
 

21 - Wentz

20 - Rivers 

19 - Jacoby

18 - Luck

17 - Tolizen

 

Find me another GM who can say that and built a team that’s made the playoffs in half those seasons (as 2021 hasn’t been played yet) and maybe more impressive only earned a top three draft pick in one of those drafts.  In 2018 after his first season of the draft.  I’ll wait.  
 

Going back to 2018 he looked to have the Colts moving into the top of the AFC and then Andrew Luck pulled the rug out from under him with no chance to do anything but start Jacoby making 2019 a wash and meaning they had to change who he team was built around and one year later he had a new identity for the team and they were right back in the playoffs with a stop gap QB.  That’s pretty darn impressive.  
 

Now he has the guy he expects to be the answer to the QB problem.  Ultimately his fate is going to be decided by how Wentz does but thus far he’s done very well when you honestly look at everything he’s had to deal with and don’t just ignore it because it contradicts the “Ballard sucks” false narrative.  

[NewColtsFan]

24 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

Making the playoffs isn't really a high standard(the division has two bottom feeders too). Its about being able to beat teams like the Chiefs or Steelers to me.  I don't think they are getting to the Qb enough to be confident in that.

 

You can say we are impatient, I would say its been a good while since the team was a contender.  I guess he feels its not the year to spend

We weren’t going to be at that level that soon.  Ballard needed YEARS to rebuild.  I was satisfied with those results in 18 and 20 because I think it was fair and reasonable.  To expect more was unrealistic.

 

Moving forward, the bar will rise as it should.  The expectations will increase.  

[BlackTiger]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

We weren’t going to be at that level that soon.  Ballard needed YEARS to rebuild.  I was satisfied with those results in 18 and 20 because I think it was fair and reasonable.  To expect more was unrealistic.

 

Moving forward, the bar will rise as it should.  The expectations will increase.  

I didn't expect more when Jacoby was starting, no one did.  I think they are good enough now to make some moves though