It's Time to Start Questioning Ballard

[MPStack]

9 hours ago, ShuteAt168 said:

32-33 

It means absolutely nothing.

 

Ryan Grigson was 49-31 a 3-3 playoff record and one Conference Championship appearance, after five season, with zero losing seasons. 
 

Grigs was terrible and Ballard is one of the best GMs in the league.

 

Just stop! Lol

[Superman]

8 hours ago, stitches said:

I mean... both Ballard and Irsay have stated that they thought they were close last year. I don't know if they've put it in those exact terms but the general sentiment I am getitng from them is that they think this team should be a competitor this year. And furthermore - we are 5 years into Ballard's management - if the roster isn't close, then what are we talking about? Isn't there any expectation that it should be "upper echelon" at this poitn? Sure he had some bad luck with Andrew. But we are now several years removed from that and Ballard made his bet with Wentz as his franchise QB. This team needs to be upper echelon... SOON... if not NOW! 

 

And that's a conversation better suited for a few weeks from now. Week 1 sucked, but it's not definitive. 

 

Quote

 

We had this discussion before but substituted with Autry and Houston - yes they likely won't move the needle but they provide some base level play. The thing with AQM is ...  at this point of his career he is what he is. He's a back end of the roster rotational pass-rusher ideally. You are not getting some hidden upside with AQM. Ingram was much more than that before his injury. It's much more likely that Ingram will return to form after getting healthy(BTW he had a great game on Sunday, even without netting a sack) than AQM will reach some level he's never sniffed in the past. 

 

But again... I can keep throwing names at you fitting different categories(cheap vets past their prime, expensive premier FAs, middling FAs, etc) and you can find reasons to dismiss any of them - too old, too expensive, too meh. The point is - Ballard had options and he chose this one. At some point Ballard will have to be responsible for his choices. At some point some of his gambles need to pan out. 

 

 

I feel like you're missing the point with the edge guys, or maybe you just don't agree. They didn't want 30+ year old guys who aren't making plays as pass rushers (I will admit, Houston looked really good on an early pass rush last night; he missed the sack, but he abused the RT), especially if that means playing those guys ahead of Turay, Banogu, etc. AQM is a rotational DE, not the answer at edge. All things equal, I'd rather have Houston at $2m or Ingram at $4m than AQM at $3m, but all things aren't equal (they had an offer out to Houston before the draft), and the real hope for the pass rush rests with our young guys. 

 

Quote

I understand people's frustrations with Ballard and this roster. I'm not quite there with some of the more extreme ones wanting his head, but at some point he needs to start hitting on some of those premier positions. 

 

I think people tend to make a bigger deal out of things, especially things they don't agree with, especially after a bad loss. 

 

[Nickster]

15 hours ago, DougDew said:

You do realize that I said the literal take on the comment made no sense, that it is false, nonsensical, ridiculous. 

 

But the comment did made sense because the literal take was not its meaning. 

 

Its actual meaning made a good point.  Nailing lesser positions of value in 2018 doesn't advance the 2021 roster as much as nailing more important positions in 2018 and the ensuing years.  That's what it meant. 

 

Not saying that Ballard had a lot of opportunities the way the cards fell, but it might make somebody reconsider their previous comments.

 

 

The logic police.  Don't.  Understand.  Nuance.  Or.  Figurative.  Language.  Or.  Their.  Internet.  Personas.  Just.  Act.  Like.  That.

[Superman]

12 hours ago, ar7 said:

 

I think the Luck retirement is important to bring up. Some will point out how you can't keep using it as an excuse but we can't overlook the impact this had.

 

Every decision Ballard made from the time he was hired up until Luck retired was made with the belief that Luck would be the QB for the long term. Had Luck never came back in 2018 and retired in 2017 then the Colts would have likely drafted Darnold or maybe Allen. Instead they trade back a few spots and take Nelson.

 

Luck not only retiring unexpectedly but retiring when he did really had the same impact on this franchise as the Bears missing with the Mitch Trubisky pick and chasing that mistake.

 

Hopefully Wentz solves this but even if so the Colts still had to use two early draft picks to solve it. Draft picks that could have been used on other needs.

 

I will also add that I agree with those who have pointed out in this thread that going from good to great is the tough part. The opinion on Ballard (or the team in general) is really going to be on the top 5-6 players to consistently shine and not whether or not the type of decisions that commonly get complained about. 

 

All this is true, and I've gone down this path many times.

 

At the same time, it's also true that Ballard drafted Rock, Banogu and Campbell ahead of Metcalf, and while I don't think the book is closed on any of those players, it doesn't look great for Ballard's choice right now. (And I say this as someone who wasn't a Metcalf fan, and I still think he's limited, but he's been insanely productive already.) He took Pittman ahead of Claypool, and that story hasn't been told, but Claypool had nine TDs as a rookie on a bad offense. 

 

So everything is not about Luck (or AC, or any of the other sucky things that have happened that are outside of Ballard's control). And there are legitimate things that Ballard can be second guessed on. But that's true of even the best GMs, because no one is perfect, every roster has some rough spots, and there's always a what-if in the draft and FA.

[Superman]

17 minutes ago, Nickster said:

The logic police.  Don't.  Understand.  Nuance.  Or.  Figurative.  Language.  Or.  Their.  Internet.  Personas.  Just.  Act.  Like.  That.

 

I love this ad hominem approach. 

 

As a matter of fact, the next time I'm called out for saying something dumb and wrong, I'll just claim the other person is a robot who doesn't understand nuance. That's the new 'get out of jail free' card around here.

[Nickster]

12 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

What did I say all last year and got called being overly negative? This D is not good. It plays a one dimensional team and  they look like giant killers. They play a balanced team with a good qb and they get torn apart. The defence is to simplistic.  Now if people want to argue and say no it is not and th Colts can win with this scheme. My rebuttal would be that we don't have the talent on defence to play what the Colts want to play. Either way....we screwed lol!!

It's a talent issue.

[Zoltan]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

All this is true, and I've gone down this path many times.

 

At the same time, it's also true that Ballard drafted Rock, Banogu and Campbell ahead of Metcalf, and while I don't think the book is closed on any of those players, it doesn't look great for Ballard's choice right now. (And I say this as someone who wasn't a Metcalf fan, and I still think he's limited, but he's been insanely productive already.) He took Pittman ahead of Claypool, and that story hasn't been told, but Claypool had nine TDs as a rookie on a bad offense. 

 

So everything is not about Luck (or AC, or any of the other sucky things that have happened that are outside of Ballard's control). And there are legitimate things that Ballard can be second guessed on. But that's true of even the best GMs, because no one is perfect, every roster has some rough spots, and there's always a what-if in the draft and FA.

 

I have always pushed back on the Metcalf and Claypool argument, because they wouldn't have those stats if we drafted them. Metcalf (totally ignore the whole neck surgery thing) was mostly a straight line running coming out, and went to the perfect place someone who could air it out. What QB have we had that could throw it to him? Definitely not Rivers, Jacoby sure but would he actually throw it. Then with Claypool do people realize he was/is the 3rd/4th string WR and was often lined-up in mismatch situations for those tds because of the focus being on the starting WRs. I bet if you put Claypool in a starting position he wouldn't have done nearly as well.

 

We as fans expect perfect and then use Hindsight to complain when we are not perfect, and it is impossible to build a perfect roster, because some things are out of your control, like Castonzo I bet he fully believed he was gonna play out his 2 year contract until he got hurt at the end of the season. 

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, Zoltan said:

 

I have always pushed back on the Metcalf and Claypool argument, because they wouldn't have those stats if we drafted them. Metcalf (totally ignore the whole neck surgery thing) was mostly a straight line running coming out, and went to the perfect place someone who could air it out. What QB have we had that could throw it to him? Definitely not Rivers, Jacoby sure but would he actually throw it. Then with Claypool do people realize he was/is the 3rd/4th string WR and was often lined-up in mismatch situations for those tds because of the focus being on the starting WRs. I bet if you put Claypool in a starting position he wouldn't have done nearly as well.

 

We as fans expect perfect and then use Hindsight to complain when we are not perfect, and it is impossible to build a perfect roster, because some things are out of your control, like Castonzo I bet he fully believed he was gonna play out his 2 year contract until he got hurt at the end of the season. 

I thought AC came to Ballard and they spoke about retirement before that draft, then AC signed a two year deal.  Then he retried before the next draft.  Ballard had two drafts to account for ACs retirement.  He wasn't gut punched.

 

Not saying that signing Fisher isn't a good fix for now and wasn't always in the back of Ballard's mind as an out, but its not like the AC situation snuck up on him like the Luck situation did.

 

And TY has probably been in the short window area for three years.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, Zoltan said:

 

I have always pushed back on the Metcalf and Claypool argument, because they wouldn't have those stats if we drafted them. Metcalf (totally ignore the whole neck surgery thing) was mostly a straight line running coming out, and went to the perfect place someone who could air it out. What QB have we had that could throw it to him? Definitely not Rivers, Jacoby sure but would he actually throw it. Then with Claypool do people realize he was/is the 3rd/4th string WR and was often lined-up in mismatch situations for those tds because of the focus being on the starting WRs. I bet if you put Claypool in a starting position he wouldn't have done nearly as well.

 

We as fans expect perfect and then use Hindsight to complain when we are not perfect, and it is impossible to build a perfect roster, because some things are out of your control, like Castonzo I bet he fully believed he was gonna play out his 2 year contract until he got hurt at the end of the season. 

 

Yeah, Metcalf got linked up with a QB who excels at throwing the ball deep. And even though JB has a big arm, he doesn't complete deep passes. Rivers arm was done, unless he could take two hops, plant, and chuck. 

 

I'm just saying that it's easy to take issue with some of our picks that haven't hit -- especially in 2019 -- when there are guys from that same class performing at positions we need help with. I mean, people had Banogu getting cut this preseason, which isn't totally fair, but he certainly hasn't given them any reason to be encouraged. 

 

So if we want to talk about "mistakes" Ballard has made, there's room for it. And there always has been. Just be fair and reasonable, is all I'm saying.

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I think he drafted two Gs, and said as much in 2018, Nelson and Smith.  He drafted them to simply fix the oline immediately, by buying immediate starters.  We had slow LBers too, so he drafted the second best rangy LB in the draft after Roquan Smith, DL. It turned out that Braden Smith was needed at RT at some point during TC or preseason, so that's where he landed.

 

No problem.  Good strategy.  Totally need based (when you have a bad roster, every position is a need), but pretty good value too.  It turned out those were positions that were easy to find.  And you resign your good players, so we'll have lots of cap capital devoted to them where before we had draft capital devoted.

 

I say the reality is, its a matter of circumstance more than it is a strategy of building the trenches or building from the inside out.

 

The circumstance was that he succeeded at drafting the easier positions, in part, because he drafted them very high relative to where Gs and WILLS can be drafted.  How much praise does he deserve for that?

 

DL was a find, no doubt.  I am not sure that at this point the signing will end up being a good one long term.  It's not necessarily Ballard's fault, but I'd personally like to see a coverage guy here.

 

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

 

He drafted an edge at 21 this year, an X Wr at 37, and a RB at 41.  Blackmon will be a decent C2 safety, IMO.   Those players will probably work out because that's where you draft those positions.  He gave up pick 13 for a 3T, because that's where you have to draft a quality, 3 down 3T.

 

Blackmon's coverage skills have a long way to go, but hopefully he will get there.  We spent a ton on Buckner.  Needed to maybe, but doesn't change the fact.

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

 

He's not finding a #1 Corner with RYS at 34, nor anything other than developmental situational pass rushers in the mid/late second round like he did.  Do you see the difference with Paye's play right now compared to Turay and Ben?  There is a reason he had to pick Pay at 21 but was able to pick the other guys in the second round,  Duh.  He's going to find only a slot receiver at 59.  All are role players.

 

He needs to find the steady 3 down starters and threats/stars.  Not sure that we have enough high draft picks or salary cap left to add as many as we need.  Somebody on the roster is going to have to break through, IMO. 

 

 

I disagree with you on our WR that are drafted at this point.  I don't think PC has the skill and MP doesn't have the athleticism.  This like I said one area I am not confident about.  I'd love to see I was wrong about it.  But there are a lot of WR drafted before these guys that are producing right away.

 

Overall, I think we are in bad spot roster wise.  And we are limited what we can do going forward.

[Nickster]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I love this ad hominem approach. 

 

As a matter of fact, the next time I'm called out for saying something dumb and wrong, I'll just claim the other person is a robot who doesn't understand nuance. That's the new 'get out of jail free' card around here.

 

Supe you talking about ad homenim attacks is perdy funny.  You be you Supe.  But I'm worried about your blood pressure.  Your indignation must put a heavy strain on your heart.  It is hard on the body to be so indignant so much of the time.

Y

[Nickster]

13 minutes ago, Zoltan said:

 

I have always pushed back on the Metcalf and Claypool argument, because they wouldn't have those stats if we drafted them. Metcalf (totally ignore the whole neck surgery thing) was mostly a straight line running coming out, and went to the perfect place someone who could air it out. What QB have we had that could throw it to him? Definitely not Rivers, Jacoby sure but would he actually throw it. Then with Claypool do people realize he was/is the 3rd/4th string WR and was often lined-up in mismatch situations for those tds because of the focus being on the starting WRs. I bet if you put Claypool in a starting position he wouldn't have done nearly as well.

 

We as fans expect perfect and then use Hindsight to complain when we are not perfect, and it is impossible to build a perfect roster, because some things are out of your control, like Castonzo I bet he fully believed he was gonna play out his 2 year contract until he got hurt at the end of the season. 

 

I really understand what you are saying.

 

BUT, hindsight is the name of the game for GMs.  Nothing else matters.  Is the player you chose better than another guy you could have chosen later?  To me, that is most of the draft and then targeting need.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Nickster said:

 

Supe you talking about ad homenim attacks is perdy funny.  You be you Supe.  But I'm worried about your blood pressure.  Your indignation must put a heavy strain on your heart.  It is hard on the body to be so indignant so much of the time.

Y

 

More ad hominem. 

[csmopar]

10 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

DL was a find, no doubt.  I am not sure that at this point the signing will end up being a good one long term.  It's not necessarily Ballard's fault, but I'd personally like to see a coverage guy here.

 

 

Blackmon's coverage skills have a long way to go, but hopefully he will get there.  We spent a ton on Buckner.  Needed to maybe, but doesn't change the fact.

 

 

I disagree with you on our WR that are drafted at this point.  I don't think PC has the skill and MP doesn't have the athleticism.  This like I said one area I am not confident about.  I'd love to see I was wrong about it.  But there are a lot of WR drafted before these guys that are producing right away.

 

Overall, I think we are in bad spot roster wise.  And we are limited what we can do going forward.

Let’s compare:

 

Bill Polin’s first 5 seasons with the Colts with Chris Ballard’s.

# of head Coaches: 2

# of Starting regular season QBs: 1

record: overall 35-45

 

Chris Ballard:

# of head coaches: 2

# of starting QBs: 6

record: overall 32-33(season still in progress)

 

The fact he’s only 3 wins behind a Hall of Fame GM in the same allotted time with only 1 game Into that 5th season with 6, I repeat 6 different starting QBs while Polian had the GOAT at QB for his first 5 seasons, throws your entire argument out the window,

 

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

DL was a find, no doubt.  I am not sure that at this point the signing will end up being a good one long term.  It's not necessarily Ballard's fault, but I'd personally like to see a coverage guy here.

 

 

Blackmon's coverage skills have a long way to go, but hopefully he will get there.  We spent a ton on Buckner.  Needed to maybe, but doesn't change the fact.

 

 

I disagree with you on our WR that are drafted at this point.  I don't think PC has the skill and MP doesn't have the athleticism.  This like I said one area I am not confident about.  I'd love to see I was wrong about it.  But there are a lot of WR drafted before these guys that are producing right away.

 

Overall, I think we are in bad spot roster wise.  And we are limited what we can do going forward.

DL is a WILL in a 43 and you don't have to spend that much for a WILL.  I get it that the Bears back in the day did (forget his name), and TB had Brooks, but those teams were built around defense, so everybody was paid well.  

 

I'm not complaining about the signing.  Its hard to let him go.  But spending that much on a WILL sort of produces headwinds towards building (and keeping beyond 3 years) the other parts of the roster.  We'll see how it works out.

 

Blackmon seems to have the talent to develop.

 

PC is a slot and Pittman is an X.  They are fine for those roles.  If Straw can develop into more of a threat than a possession contested catch guy, I think we can get by with those three sprinkled in with Pascal.  But a real 3 down threat with Straw's build and hands would be ideal.  Typically only find those in the 1st or get lucky in the second.

 

And we need a TE.  Gransen seems like a physically limited role player, but we'll see.  A real threat at TE would make up for the lack of a true outside threat, IMO. 

 

And a Star would open things up for the others.

 

Overall I like our receiver group.  We are simply missing the 3 down threat/star...the hardest piece to find of course, lol.

[csmopar]

[Zoltan]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I thought AC came to Ballard and they spoke about retirement before that draft, then AC signed a two year deal.  Then he retried before the next draft.  Ballard had two drafts to account for ACs retirement.  He wasn't gut punched.

 

Not saying that signing Fisher isn't a good fix for now and wasn't always in the back of Ballard's mind as an out, but its not like the AC situation snuck up on him like the Luck situation did.

 

And TY has probably been in the short window area for three years.

 

I was using it more of an example of you can't control everything. I mean you can draft a replacement 1st round LT like Andre Dillard to replace Jason Peters, but doesn't mean he will pan out and will be outplayed by a 7th rounder like Jordan Mailata.

[stitches]

40 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

And that's a conversation better suited for a few weeks from now. Week 1 sucked, but it's not definitive. 

 

Hopefully we are not 0-5 after a few weeks because then the % is really going to hit the fan around here. And BTW it's completely reasonable to expect us to be either 1-4 or 0-5 when you look at the schedule. You know I'm not the one to look just at the results, but 0-5 is really hard to get out of over the season. 

 

40 minutes ago, Superman said:

I feel like you're missing the point with the edge guys, or maybe you just don't agree. They didn't want 30+ year old guys who aren't making plays as pass rushers (I will admit, Houston looked really good on an early pass rush last night; he missed the sack, but he abused the RT), especially if that means playing those guys ahead of Turay, Banogu, etc. AQM is a rotational DE, not the answer at edge. All things equal, I'd rather have Houston at $2m or Ingram at $4m than AQM at $3m, but all things aren't equal (they had an offer out to Houston before the draft), and the real hope for the pass rush rests with our young guys. 

I understand their reasoning. I'm just pointing out that this reasoning is not conducive to putting out the most consistent and win-now product on the field right now. It might be better in the long-term... or it might not be. That's the appeal of going young - you can sell hope and potential. BTW for whatever it's worth, I thought Paye played a very good game, especially for a rookie. IMO it's very likely Ballard has hit on him. I love his physical and athletic traits and they fit extremely well in that system. Plus he seems to obviously be a high character guy who will work his butt off to be as good as his talent allows him. If Dayo is similarly strong as a pick we might have something for the future. But in the meantime we are in waiting position. 

 

40 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think people tend to make a bigger deal out of things, especially things they don't agree with, especially after a bad loss. 

 

It's not that I don't agree with it. I actually like a lot of what was done... unless you are selling hope for contention right away. I don't know if you remember our discussions around FA-time/pre-draft and I was at the position that it's OK to take a step back(which we probably did this year), especially if you go with a rookie QB, which I wanted in the case that we didn't improve the roster dramatically at some of those key positions. But we didn't... in a weird way Ballard tried to have his cake and eat it too. He's giving out big contracts to our former draft picks, retaining talent(don't mind it), trading for expensive vet QB... and at the same time he decided to rely heavily on unproven youth at DE, CB, WR... and somewhere along the way I decided to close my eyes to what I knew was unproven talent that has wide range of outcomes and just assume they will pan out... and that is my own personal mistake for buying in. I should have kept my hopes low like they were around FA-time when I said multiple times here that this roster is not better than last year's roster in the short term and we are likely taking a step back. 

[shasta519]

 

15 hours ago, GoatBeard said:

Its 1 game. 1 game.

 

Its like some people dont understand that every team in the league can look bad. Even the absolute best. Especially playing another very good team. Its like some people dont understand you can have 5 all pro wideouts and suck if you cant block anyone. So its not fair to judge ours yet.

 

Its ok to question things. I question Reich and how good of a coach he really is. I personally think hes been given a very very good roster and is holding them back. There are certain things a coach is responsible for. Game preparation, consistency, adjustments, game management, etc. But it needs to be logical and fair.

 

Chris Ballard is very highly thought of around the league for a reason and its easy to see hes created a very good roster. Im not sure who you think would be better but theres a 99% chance youre wrong. 

 

4 starting QBs in 4 years. Thats really all that needs to be said. If we make the playoffs this year it will be 3 out of 4 with the worst season being a 7-9 campaign the year Luck retired on him abruptly. Thats actually remarkable and if you dont understand that youre just hopeless. This thread is just silly monday morning QB nonsense. 

 

I mean...BoB made the playoffs 3/4 years in HOU and he's awful. Actually, he had like 7-8 starting QBs in that 4-year span, so it was even more "remarkable."

 

The flipside to the QB narrative is that he hasn't had to invest in the position, which has freed up so many resources to build up the rest of the team. And that narrative really starts to fall flat if Wentz doesn't get this team to the next level because that was the path they chose. But it's too early to judge that.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

Hopefully we are not 0-5 after a few weeks because then the % is really going to hit the fan around here. And BTW it's completely reasonable to expect us to be either 1-4 or 0-5 when you look at the schedule. You know I'm not the one to look just at the results, but 0-5 is really hard to get out of over the season. 

 

I understand their reasoning. I'm just pointing out that this reasoning is not conducive to putting out the most consistent and win-now product on the field right now. It might be better in the long-term... or it might not be. That's the appeal of going young - you can sell hope and potential. BTW for whatever it's worth, I thought Paye played a very good game, especially for a rookie. IMO it's very likely Ballard has hit on him. I love his physical and athletic traits and they fit extremely well in that system. Plus he seems to obviously be a high character guy who will work his butt off to be as good as his talent allows him. If Dayo is similarly strong as a pick we might have something for the future. But in the meantime we are in waiting position. 

 

It's not that I don't agree with it. I actually like a lot of what was done... unless you are selling hope for contention right away. I don't know if you remember our discussions around FA-time/pre-draft and I was at the position that it's OK to take a step back(which we probably did this year), especially if you go with a rookie QB, which I wanted in the case that we didn't improve the roster dramatically at some of those key positions. But we didn't... in a weird way Ballard tried to have his cake and eat it too. He's giving out big contracts to our former draft picks, retaining talent(don't mind it), trading for expensive vet QB... and at the same time he decided to rely heavily on unproven youth at DE, CB, WR... and somewhere along the way I decided to close my eyes to what I knew was unproven talent that has wide range of outcomes and just assume they will pan out... and that is my own personal mistake for buying in. I should have kept my hopes low like they were around FA-time when I said multiple times here that this roster is not better than last year's roster in the short term and we are likely taking a step back. 

 

To the bolded, that wasn't meant for you. Just a general comment.

 

To the rest, we're on the same page. We're relying on unproven youth at critical positions, and if we don't have good players at most of those positions, it's gonna be a rough season. 

 

You'll note that I'm never the one talking about how good this team is, and how the rest of the league better watch out, etc. I think it's obvious that we still have a lot of work to do.

[Four2itus]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

I think people tend to make a bigger deal out of things, especially things they don't agree with, especially after a bad loss

This is the most accurate comment in this thread. 

 

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

DL is a WILL in a 43 and you don't have to spend that much for a WILL. 

 Will this argument continue until DL is gone? If you think the Colts issues in their last game was because of what DL is paid, I can't help you. 

7 minutes ago, stitches said:

Hopefully we are not 0-5 after a few weeks because then the % is really going to hit the fan around here.

This thread shows it's already hitting the fan. It's week 1 for craps sake. 

[Zoltan]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

To the bolded, that wasn't meant for you. Just a general comment.

 

To the rest, we're on the same page. We're relying on unproven youth at critical positions, and if we don't have good players at most of those positions, it's gonna be a rough season. 

 

You'll note that I'm never the one talking about how good this team is, and how the rest of the league better watch out, etc. I think it's obvious that we still have a lot of work to do.

 

We really do have a very young roster, in another thread I mentioned we only have 4 players that are over 30 years old and two of them (Fisher, Rhodes) didn't even suit up for Sunday.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

 Will this argument continue until DL is gone? If you think the Colts issues in their last game was because of what DL is paid, I can't help you.

Huh?  Its a statement, not an argument.  I didn't see him being a problem last game, and he hardly ever is the problem.  How much a player is paid is only meaningful in the context of alternative choices when on a limited budget.  Just like life.

[Zoltan]

22 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

I really understand what you are saying.

 

BUT, hindsight is the name of the game for GMs.  Nothing else matters.  Is the player you chose better than another guy you could have chosen later?  To me, that is most of the draft and then targeting need.

 

I guess we disagree on a fundamental level on the issue then. There is so much that goes into if a player succeeds or not. Scheme, position coach, other talent around them (at there position and on the roster). Player A may succeed on team A but Player A may look like a bust on Team B.

 

So I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the issue

[Nickster]

8 minutes ago, Zoltan said:

 

I guess we disagree on a fundamental level on the issue then. There is so much that goes into if a player succeeds or not. Scheme, position coach, other talent around them (at there position and on the roster). Player A may succeed on team A but Player A may look like a bust on Team B.

 

So I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the issue

Well man yeah, but don't you have to draft the player that fits your system?  

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Zoltan said:

 

I guess we disagree on a fundamental level on the issue then. There is so much that goes into if a player succeeds or not. Scheme, position coach, other talent around them (at there position and on the roster). Player A may succeed on team A but Player A may look like a bust on Team B.

 

So I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the issue

 

In general, when people are critical of the decision makers, it's as simple as 'we drafted Player X at 30, but Player Y was drafted at 50 and he's better, so the GM messed up.' It's easy and requires little perspective.

 

And honestly, sometimes it actually is that simple. But usually, all the factors you mentioned above need to be considered and adjusted for.

[Four2itus]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Huh?  Its a statement, not an argument.  I didn't see him being a problem last game, and he hardly ever is the problem.  How much a player is paid is only meaningful in the context of alternative choices when on a limited budget.  Just like life.

Interesting. I could swear you have talked about DL being paid too much for his position many times. That would change it from a statement...to an argument in my books. Saying it once is making a statement...saying it over and over is arguing the point. 

 

My bad, it must have been someone else. 

 

And to the bolded, Just like life, there are good days and bad days. One day does not define one's life. 

[Zoltan]

5 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Well man yeah, but don't you have to draft the player that fits your system?  

I mean not necessarily there's hundreds of reasons to draft or not to draft a player, scheme fit is just one of them. A common drafting against scheme fit is drafting a DE to be a 3-4 OLB, which doesn't always work but it happens quite a bit.

[Nickster]

24 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

In general, when people are critical of the decision makers, it's as simple as 'we drafted Player X at 30, but Player Y was drafted at 50 and he's better, so the GM messed up.' It's easy and requires little perspective.

 

And honestly, sometimes it actually is that simple. But usually, all the factors you mentioned above need to be considered and adjusted for.

 

In the short term, individual picks have a lot of nuance.  But over time and overall the individual caveats become simple excuses.

 

The bottom line is eventually the bottom line.

[Nickster]

13 minutes ago, Zoltan said:

I mean not necessarily there's hundreds of reasons to draft or not to draft a player, scheme fit is just one of them. A common drafting against scheme fit is drafting a DE to be a 3-4 OLB, which doesn't always work but it happens quite a bit.

 

I am totally on board with what you are saying, but don't we have to judge a GM by the output eventually?  That what I was saying in another post.  When looking at individual picks and moves there is nuance, but eventually the body of work is judged by the bottom line, making the nuance sound like excuses.  

[DougDew]

31 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Interesting. I could swear you have talked about DL being paid too much for his position many times. That would change it from a statement...to an argument in my books. Saying it once is making a statement...saying it over and over is arguing the point. 

 

My bad, it must have been someone else. 

 

And to the bolded, Just like life, there are good days and bad days. One day does not define one's life. 

Just to be clear.  I compared the signing of DL to the approach Polian took with his WILLs.  Drafted them out of college then let them walk.  Leonards stats over the three years have been the same, and I don't know that everybody understands that his stats are good because of the position he plays in the defense as much as it is because he is DL

 

With lofty stats, you can justify or agree with the signing.  Then again, lofty stats as a rookie suggests that cheap contract rookies can produce the same stats in this defense.

 

That's just raw info and suggestions of how to look at it.  Not an argument at all.   

 

I think all players are overpaid, and put all of their teams at risk when they sing the contract.  But its a reality of the NFL, so I never bother to judge a contract as good or bad.  

[Zoltan]

2 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

I am totally on board with what you are saying, but don't we have to judge a GM by the output eventually?  That what I was saying in another post.  When looking at individual picks and moves there is nuance, but eventually the body of work is judged by the bottom line, making the nuance sound like excuses.  

 

Of course you can judge a GM by their output, but you have to be realistic, and not be vague in criticism. A common one we see is we should have drafted position A vs position B because position B is more of a need right now. The problem with that argument is that it completely throws out the whole draft process and the situational thinking. Another is using hindsight about a later round pick when in actuality all 32 teams passed on a guy (sometimes multiple times). If you give hindsight to us then you have to give it to all 32 teams and the player you wanted to draft instead most likely doesn't fall to us because we are usually in the mid teens when it comes to picks.

 

Theres a million ways to continue writing examples, but if I was to make a main point that applies to all of them it is "Context is everything." 

[CanuckColt]

Ballard is doing OK compared to other GMs in the league...but he is not as great as Colts fans think.

 

[Myles]

2 hours ago, Zoltan said:

 

I have always pushed back on the Metcalf and Claypool argument, because they wouldn't have those stats if we drafted them. Metcalf (totally ignore the whole neck surgery thing)

My thought is that every GM in the league passed on him until he went at pick 64.  

People on hear give Ballard a hard time because he drafted Campbell who has had a couple injuries so far but did not have a history of on field injuries in college.   Then they give him crap for not drafting Metcalf who had major injury concerns. 

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, CanuckColt said:

Ballard is doing OK compared to other GMs in the league...but he is not as great as Colts fans think.

 

I'm on board with that.

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, Zoltan said:

 

Of course you can judge a GM by their output, but you have to be realistic, and not be vague in criticism. A common one we see is we should have drafted position A vs position B because position B is more of a need right now. The problem with that argument is that it completely throws out the whole draft process and the situational thinking. Another is using hindsight about a later round pick when in actuality all 32 teams passed on a guy (sometimes multiple times). If you give hindsight to us then you have to give it to all 32 teams and the player you wanted to draft instead most likely doesn't fall to us because we are usually in the mid teens when it comes to picks.

 

Theres a million ways to continue writing examples, but if I was to make a main point that applies to all of them it is "Context is everything." 

Yeah, I don't put much stock in late round finds.  Brady was an afterthought who just happened to be the best player ever.  Nothing NE did there really just go lucky.

 

But I think have to judge a GM by his body of work that will include individually nuanced moves.

[GoColts8818]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

My thought is that every GM in the league passed on him until he went at pick 64.  

People on hear give Ballard a hard time because he drafted Campbell who has had a couple injuries so far but did not have a history of on field injuries in college.   Then they give him crap for not drafting Metcalf who had major injury concerns. 

Because for the most part fans view these decisions with the benefit of hindsight and throw out unknowns at the time.  I do remember people want Metcalf going into the draft and AJ Brown for that matter but I also remember people being happy when Campbell was drafted.  It’s not like there was an out cry about him on draft night.  

[Les Poulains]

1 hour ago, CanuckColt said:

Ballard is doing OK compared to other GMs in the league...but he is not as great as Colts fans think.

 

Agreed. You have to be nuanced with this stuff. Some of his decisions and roster building philosophy have been extremely questionable but on the other hand, he's been saddled with a tough QB situation and has mostly been good at drafting and finding value.

 

I'd say he's between 10-15 if you're ranking GM's in the league off the top of my head. He's great at PR, comes across as a likeable guy and replaced a guy everyone hated so that's done wonders for his reputation.

[shasta519]

3 hours ago, csmopar said:

Let’s compare:

 

Bill Polin’s first 5 seasons with the Colts with Chris Ballard’s.

# of head Coaches: 2

# of Starting regular season QBs: 1

record: overall 35-45

 

Chris Ballard:

# of head coaches: 2

# of starting QBs: 6

record: overall 32-33(season still in progress)

 

The fact he’s only 3 wins behind a Hall of Fame GM in the same allotted time with only 1 game Into that 5th season with 6, I repeat 6 different starting QBs while Polian had the GOAT at QB for his first 5 seasons, throws your entire argument out the window,

 

 

Polian had Harbaugh for '97 if we are including it.

 

Also, including one-game starts from Tolzien and Hoyer as different QBs seems disingenuous.  

 

But it is an interesting comp. I would say Ballard had the advantage in their second seasons, considering he got a proven 29 year-old stud QB...and Polian got a great (but still unproven) rookie QB prospect.

[csmopar]

6 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

Polian had Harbaugh for '97 if we are including it.

 

Also, including one-game starts from Tolzien and Hoyer as different QBs seems disingenuous.  

 

But it is an interesting comp. I would say Ballard had the advantage in their second seasons, considering he got a proven 29 year-old stud QB...and Polian got a great (but still unproven) rookie QB prospect.

Crap, I did forget Polian had Jim. So yes, 2. 
 

but to that point about Luck as well, Jim had led the team to the brink of a super bowl a couple years prior as well. Not saying Jim was  as good as luck, but he too was a proven QB at that point.

 

even if you throw out any one game QBs, you’re still looking at Ballard having 4 seasons with someone different under center. And to be basically 500 is amazing all things considered