How you feel about Ballards approach to FA

[WoolMagnet]

So far, so good.  He bought us some time at CB, bolstered the OL depth, added an exciting prospect at QB,  And even tho 1 year deals, i thought Rhodes and Carrie was big.  Also TY and Mack.  I liked what we brought back.  I think Houston is a good possibility too.  If that happens i feel prettygood going into draft.

  Ballard isnt done. Its a good draft for WRs and OL.  This not only helps us in draft, but there will be some interesting cuts later at the positions as well.  
  I’m ok with us being quiet early on for the BIG contracts that rarely cashin.

  Sign our own, make wise fiscally prudent choices that fit our scheme and locker room, and provide depth at all positions for competition. 
Looks to me like he’s doing just that.

 Now going into draft focus on LT and edge rush primarily and maybe try to improve WR , DL, and TE positions. Maybe target CBfor future. Other than that, i think the roster is pretty exciting.

[richard pallo]

I had a thought about how Ballard could approach this years draft.  This is an out of the box thought though.  But since this year was so out of the norm with so many players and teams not playing and no combine and only virtual visits, no team physicals and so forth teams can't possibly have accumulated the usual amount of information they would normally would have to evaluate prospects.  Since the draft is a crap shoot anyway maybe an approach to take is to not worry about accumulating more picks this year but instead focusing on making the first three or four picks our only picks.  Maybe trade back once in the 1st then trade up in the 2nd 3rd and maybe 4th using picks4, 5, 6 and 7 to do so. Then sign undrafted FA's after the draft.  We trade up and try to get the players we really covet this year even if it's only three or four players drafted.  There will still be players available at final cutdown as well.  A different strategy for this year and with our roster it might make sense.  It's not like we are in rebuilding mode. Then next year it's back to normal.  Like I said an out of the box idea. 

[MPStack]

34 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I had a thought about how Ballard could approach this years draft.  This is an out of the box thought though.  But since this year was so out of the norm with so many players and teams not playing and no combine and only virtual visits, no team physicals and so forth teams can't possibly have accumulated the usual amount of information they would normally would have to evaluate prospects.  Since the draft is a crap shoot anyway maybe an approach to take is to not worry about accumulating more picks this year but instead focusing on making the first three or four picks our only picks.  Maybe trade back once in the 1st then trade up in the 2nd 3rd and maybe 4th using picks4, 5, 6 and 7 to do so. Then sign undrafted FA's after the draft.  We trade up and try to get the players we really covet this year even if it's only three or four players drafted.  There will still be players available at final cutdown as well.  A different strategy for this year and with our roster it might make sense.  It's not like we are in rebuilding mode. Then next year it's back to normal.  Like I said an out of the box idea. 

Ballard isn’t going to trade back every year. It’s just become an obsession with a lot fans that he will. 
 

 

 

[shasta519]

28 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I had a thought about how Ballard could approach this years draft.  This is an out of the box thought though.  But since this year was so out of the norm with so many players and teams not playing and no combine and only virtual visits, no team physicals and so forth teams can't possibly have accumulated the usual amount of information they would normally would have to evaluate prospects.  Since the draft is a crap shoot anyway maybe an approach to take is to not worry about accumulating more picks this year but instead focusing on making the first three or four picks our only picks.  Maybe trade back once in the 1st then trade up in the 2nd 3rd and maybe 4th using picks4, 5, 6 and 7 to do so. Then sign undrafted FA's after the draft.  We trade up and try to get the players we really covet this year even if it's only three or four players drafted.  There will still be players available at final cutdown as well.  A different strategy for this year and with our roster it might make sense.  It's not like we are in rebuilding mode. Then next year it's back to normal.  Like I said an out of the box idea. 

 

Interesting theory. However, knowing what we know about Ballard, I don't see this as the approach he will take.

 

One big reason is that the UDFA pool will be thinner this year...for many of the reasons you mentioned. COVID has really created a lot of unknowns and hampered players from rising up draft boards. And since the NCAA allowed an additional year of eligibility...many players are returning for a "super senior" to increase their draft stock for next year. This will create more competition for UDFAs...so if you want to ensure that you get a certain player...it's best to have and use a late pick on him.

 

So what I think you will actually see is an opposite approach where Ballard will look to acquire a few more late Day 3 picks, that he can use in lieu of competing for priority UDFAs from a list that isn't as strong as year's past. So you will probably see late Day 3 picks attached to any trade backs.

 

And then for significant draft capital via trade, I think he will be eyeing picks from next year's draft. I know people love to mock the Colts getting back all of these additional Day 2 picks this year in a trade back. And that makes sense...since they don't have a 3rd round pick. But they are down a (likely) 1st next year (at least a 2nd). And that's in a class where the player pool will be larger. Some might argue that it makes losing that pick sting a little less, but I don't think Ballard sees it that way. He wants to be able to pick from as large of a pool as possible. 

 

So I think Ballard will look to recoup as much draft value, if not increase it, to take advantage of next year's class. That inactivity in FA is likely in part because of next year's draft. In a larger draft class, even late comp picks will have some value. If he can get a couple of extra picks back for next year...plus a late comp pick or two...I think they will prefer that method. 

[shasta519]

13 minutes ago, MPStack said:

Ballard isn’t going to trade back every year. It’s just become an obsession with a lot fans that he will. 
 

 

 

 

Yep. And many of them also think that teams are going to give Ballard some ridiculous haul of draft picks.

 

Most of this is due to 2018 trade from #3 to #6...where the NYJ did give Ballard a sweetheart trade. But that wasn't some indication of draft approach...it was just good, sound decision-making. And it was a trade that nearly all GMs would make if they could get it (assuming they too didn't need a QB). And it happened well before the draft, which is much different than a draft day trade back. 

 

So he's only really ever done a big draft day trade back once...in 2019. And not to rehash this...but it's looking like it was not the correct path...so I am not sure why fans are so gung-ho about doing it every year.

 

But overall, he's probably traded up on draft day as much as he has traded down. 

 

I think if trades back this year, it's going to be small trade backs that land late round picks (like moving back in the 3rd and 4th rounds)...or one singluar trade back that lands Day 2 draft capital next year to help offset the Wentz trade. 

 

And then after this trade, the prevailing narrative will be that it doesn't matter what Wentz does...because he was basically free.

[Two_pound]

If you look at last years draft 7 of the 9 picks were made via trades. Mostly trading down, but we did trade up in the 2nd round to draft Taylor.(great move by the way!) There is nothing wrong with maneuvering around throughout the draft for more picks and better positioning, Ballard is actually pretty good at it.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

Yep. And many of them also think that teams are going to give Ballard some ridiculous haul of draft picks.

 

Most of this is due to 2018 trade from #3 to #6...where the NYJ did give Ballard a sweetheart trade. But that wasn't some indication of draft approach...it was just good, sound decision-making. And it was a trade that nearly all GMs would make if they could get it (assuming they too didn't need a QB). And it happened well before the draft, which is much different than a draft day trade back. 

 

So he's only really ever done a big draft day trade back once...in 2019. And not to rehash this...but it's looking like it was not the correct path...so I am not sure why fans are so gung-ho about doing it every year.

 

But overall, he's probably traded up on draft day as much as he has traded down. 

 

I think if trades back this year, it's going to be small trade backs that land late round picks (like moving back in the 3rd and 4th rounds)...or one singluar trade back that lands Day 2 draft capital next year to help offset the Wentz trade. 

 

And then after this trade, the prevailing narrative will be that it doesn't matter what Wentz does...because he was basically free.

 

Ballard has traded his first round pick each of the last three years. Different circumstances in each case, so maybe not a pattern, but the idea that Ballard is willing to give up his first rounder for what he perceives as "value" is not a made up concept.

 

And we don't have to rehash the 2019 decision, but suggesting it was not the correct path seems to be based on either wanting Sweat, not liking Ya-Sin, or some combination of the two. That sets aside the likelihood that Sweat wasn't on their board. It also misses the point of a trade back, which is based on their idea of value at that point in the draft, not just on who they can/do pick. That trade netted the Colts #34 in the 2020 draft. There's no question that they got great value out of that trade.

 

Listening to Ballard talk about how he approaches the draft, and comparing it to the moves he's made, he seems to favor having greater value than he does having higher picks. His words: "I love them picks." The trade up for Taylor is an exception, but that cost him a fifth. Compare that to trading back in 2019, and picking up a future second. It's a different story entirely.

 

Sitting at #21, with the QB position addressed, and IMO the first round being very top heavy with a bit of a logjam of similar talent outside of the top 15 guys (setting aside QBs), I think any team would be exploring a trade, up or down. If you have a major need at a critical position, you can't expect a great prospect to fall to the 20s. And I think there's a clear separation between the first tier and the second tier -- especially at tackle and edge -- with a lot of good prospects at those positions on Day 2. 

 

If I had to bet right now, I'd bet that we trade back. Especially after the Wentz deal, but also after getting a better idea for the way this draft seems to set to go. 

 

One thing worth considering, but that I don't think is likely to happen, is a variation on @richard pallo's scenario. Just because the first three picks will be QBs, and maybe Denver comes up to four, and Philly might take a QB, or Detroit might move down for a team who wants a QB... we might have five QBs in the top ten, probably will have five in the top 20, so there are a couple of top 15 prospects who might last to #21. But I think they'll be DB/LB/WR prospects, not edge/tackle prospects, because again, I think the value for edge/tackle is on Day 2 if you can't get one of the top guys.

 

So maybe Darrisaw or Slater or Paye -- someone that the Colts really like at one of these high value positions -- is still available at #16, and they have an opportunity to move up. That might result in the Colts having just four or five picks in this year's draft. But I don't realistically see that happening. Ballard likes having more picks, and he doesn't like trading future picks (he's only done it once, for a QB they see as a potential franchise anchor). But I don't think that's likely.

[Two_pound]

I don't see the Colts moving up at all in the first round this year. I think the opposite will happen, a trade down so Ballard can get back a 3rd round pick.

[ReMeDy]

After seeing Ryan Grigson build through free agency, I'm more than happy to continue supporting Ballard's draft approach. The Washington Redskins also built through free agency (ex. Albert Haynesworth), and that got them nowhere.

[MPStack]

18 minutes ago, ReMeDy said:

After seeing Ryan Grigson build through free agency, I'm more than happy to continue supporting Ballard's draft approach. The Washington Redskins also built through free agency (ex. Albert Haynesworth), and that got them nowhere.

To be fair, the Colts were competitive under Grigson. 
 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/executives/GrigRy0.htm

[Boondoggle]

I don't agree with everything Ballard does but then again it's not his job to make me happy it's his job to build a roster that can compete.  And he's done that.  So I tend to cut the GM slack even when he passes on players I really like.

 

Colts are a true contender if Wentz can get back on track.  I think he's still got some dev to go but that's fine by me.  Also he is going to have a strong team around him which matters.  We all tend to put more on the QB than we should IMO.

 

I do think this season is about LT.  He has to hit on that pick.  If he doesn't it's going to make things harder on a young QB who has a lot of talent but also a lot to prove.

[ColtJax]

If the Colts did nothing I'd be *. But getting our own back was huge, and if we can use the remaining cap money to secure 2 out of the three big guys (Leonard, Nelson and Smith) it will be a homerun..

[shasta519]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Ballard has traded his first round pick each of the last three years. Different circumstances in each case, so maybe not a pattern, but the idea that Ballard is willing to give up his first rounder for what he perceives as "value" is not a made up concept.

 

And we don't have to rehash the 2019 decision, but suggesting it was not the correct path seems to be based on either wanting Sweat, not liking Ya-Sin, or some combination of the two. That sets aside the likelihood that Sweat wasn't on their board. It also misses the point of a trade back, which is based on their idea of value at that point in the draft, not just on who they can/do pick. That trade netted the Colts #34 in the 2020 draft. There's no question that they got great value out of that trade.

 

Listening to Ballard talk about how he approaches the draft, and comparing it to the moves he's made, he seems to favor having greater value than he does having higher picks. His words: "I love them picks." The trade up for Taylor is an exception, but that cost him a fifth. Compare that to trading back in 2019, and picking up a future second. It's a different story entirely.

 

Sitting at #21, with the QB position addressed, and IMO the first round being very top heavy with a bit of a logjam of similar talent outside of the top 15 guys (setting aside QBs), I think any team would be exploring a trade, up or down. If you have a major need at a critical position, you can't expect a great prospect to fall to the 20s. And I think there's a clear separation between the first tier and the second tier -- especially at tackle and edge -- with a lot of good prospects at those positions on Day 2. 

 

If I had to bet right now, I'd bet that we trade back. Especially after the Wentz deal, but also after getting a better idea for the way this draft seems to set to go. 

 

One thing worth considering, but that I don't think is likely to happen, is a variation on @richard pallo's scenario. Just because the first three picks will be QBs, and maybe Denver comes up to four, and Philly might take a QB, or Detroit might move down for a team who wants a QB... we might have five QBs in the top ten, probably will have five in the top 20, so there are a couple of top 15 prospects who might last to #21. But I think they'll be DB/LB/WR prospects, not edge/tackle prospects, because again, I think the value for edge/tackle is on Day 2 if you can't get one of the top guys.

 

So maybe Darrisaw or Slater or Paye -- someone that the Colts really like at one of these high value positions -- is still available at #16, and they have an opportunity to move up. That might result in the Colts having just four or five picks in this year's draft. But I don't realistically see that happening. Ballard likes having more picks, and he doesn't like trading future picks (he's only done it once, for a QB they see as a potential franchise anchor). But I don't think that's likely.

 

He has traded his 1st in three straight years. But trading from #3 to #6 in March and trading for #13 for DeFo in March is different than a draft day trade back IMO. Maybe a minor distinction...but I just don’t think it’s necessarily indicative of a guy who is more likely than not to trade back (at least not in the way people portray). 
 

For example, in b2b drafts...he has had #34...a very valuable pick for trade ups...and has kept it in lieu of some likely very good trade proposals. 
 

But I do agree that a trade up is very unlikely...unless he can strike a real bargain. If he does move... I think it will be back with a focus on draft capital for next year...where the draft pool will be deep.

 

Mostly because I struggle with why teams would give up a lot to move up in this draft with so many unknowns. Just seems a lot easier for another team to give up next year’s draft capital than current draft capital.

 

But likewise, with so many unknowns about other teams’ boards, I am pretty confident that small trade backs will happen. And late-round picks are more valuable if you have guys you like late. And I am sure Ballard does. 
 

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, MPStack said:

To be fair, the Colts were competitive under Grigson. 
 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/executives/GrigRy0.htm

Grigson was competitive right up to the moment he wasn’t.

 

He gets credit for ‘12, ‘13, ‘14.

 

He gets blame for ‘15 and ‘16, and even ‘17.   Grigson left the incoming administration a tear down.   Technically, ‘17 is on Ballard.  But if you understand how football works, the fingerprints for that 4-12 season are far more Grigson’s than Ballard’s. 

[MPStack]

9 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Grigson was competitive right up to the moment he wasn’t.

 

He gets credit for ‘12, ‘13, ‘14.

 

He gets blame for ‘15 and ‘16, and even ‘17.   Grigson left the incoming administration a tear down.   Technically, ‘17 is on Ballard.  But if you understand how football works, the fingerprints for that 4-12 season are far more Grigson’s than Ballard’s. 

And in one year, the Colts were back in the playoffs, just like that. We can spin these things any which way, but I’m not going to argue about. 

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, MPStack said:

And in one year, the Colts were back in the playoffs, just like that. We can spin these things any which way, but I’m not going to argue about. 

 

 

And in one year WITH Andrew Luck, we were back in the playoffs.

 

Funny how many people forget that. 

[MPStack]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

And in one year WITH Andrew Luck, we were back in the playoffs.

 

Funny how many people forget that. 

You think I forgot JB was QB in 2017, and that Luck came back in 2018, getting the Colts back in the playoffs all by himself? 

[NewColtsFan]

9 minutes ago, MPStack said:

You think I forgot JB was QB in 2017, and that Luck came back in 2018, getting the Colts back in the playoffs all by himself? 

I don’t know what you, or anyone forgets?  My response wasn’t intended just for you.   It was intended for all who read it.  

[MPStack]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I don’t know what you, or anyone forgets?  My response wasn’t intended just for you.   It was intended for all who read it.  

[NewColtsFan]

30 minutes ago, MPStack said:

Yeah.   Right.   Sure.   Whatever.