Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Ballard FA Grievances Thread (Merge)


Bert Johns
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 4/12/2022 at 10:09 AM, shasta519 said:

Let’s get one thing straight. He might not have been a good GM, Grigson did NOT ruin Luck’s career. His contribution was no larger than anybody else. 
 

And blaming it on Grigson is just irrational. 

 

Luck suffered three main injuries during his time:
 

1. Torn labrum on a sack against TEN in early 2015. (OL’s fault)

 

2. Lacerated kidney and pulled abdomen muscles. Happened during a scramble against DEN where Luck had a clean pocket but took off running (like he often did). (Not OL’s fault)

 

3. Sprained AC joint from a snowboarding accident after the 2015 season, when he was already hurt. (Not OL’s fault)
 

So ONE injury occurred due to poor OL play.
 

Everybody knows that football is physical and violent (and that Luck had a very physical play style too). Players can (and do) get hurt on any play…QBs can get hurt on ANY sack or hit, regardless of the OL.

 

Luck’s shoulder injury happened early in only his 4th season. There are QBs who have played for far longer and absorbed many more hits and sacks over their careers, but never suffered an injury like that. 

 

Luck might have led a list of players with QB hits from  2012-2015. But the other three players were Russell Wilson, Matt Ryan and Ryan Tannehill. All still playing. Luck would be too…if he had chosen to. 

 

Hell, Ryan, at age 36, was sacked 40x

and knocked-down more than any QB last season. This was his 4th-straight 40+ sack season. And we are talking about him playing until he is possibly 40.

 

Wentz was second in QB knock-downs last year with this OL. Never got hurt,

except for when he scrambled. 

 

The best example is probably JB. In 2017, he led the league in sacks and

was hit a ton. Missed no games.

 

But then in 2019, when he is playing behind an elite OL, JB gets hurt because of an OL player. The irony. 

 

So % happens. And nobody was blaming a poor OL (and Ballard by proxy) for that JB injury. If that knee injury somehow led to JB retiring, people would just call it bad luck. 
 

And that’s all it was for Luck…just bad luck. Beyond silly to blame the GM for a QB getting hurt one time and even worse to blame him for that QB retiring on his own decision. 

When people blame Grigson for ruining Luck’s career it’s for failing to put together a line to protect him.  Not having quality of players falls on the GMs shoulders.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

History. This has Irsays finger  prints all over it. 

 

The Wentz move had irsays finger prints all over it. The rest? Standard operating procedure by Ballard. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2022 at 5:28 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think Grigson was average on a scale of bad, below average, average, good, very good, great to be fair despite being a jerk according to Reggie Wayne and Pat McAfee. As a GM he had a very good record but Andrew Luck was the main reason why. Grigson did some good things like draft TY Hilton and re-sign Reggie Wayne in 2012. His bad things were glaring though like his ability  not to be able get a good O.Line in here and the trade for Trent, etc.. Ballard IMO is good, he drafts better and when Ballard had Luck as QB he went 10-6 and won a playoff game, when he had Rivers at QB he went 11-5. That alone proves how important having a good-great QB is. Grigson was very fortunate to have Andrew Luck from 2012-2014, he was able to compile a very good record over that time. In 2015 and 2016 with Luck not at 100% look at Grigson's record = 8-8 and 8-8.

 

Ballard is the main reason why we were able to draft Jonathan Taylor, he has been the most impactful player we have had since Andrew Luck. He also drafted Darius Leonard with the 36th pick which was one of the best steals in any draft we have ever seen. If people could go back and do that draft again, Leonard goes top 15, maybe top 10. He drafted Nelson because Luck needed protection and Nelson was the perfect pick. Nelson is still a great player and I am glad we have him.

 

One thing I don't like about Ballard is his failure's to bring in at least 1 or 2 game changing Free Agents to help the team to get the next level. I am not saying spend a lot of money but just that 1 or 2 game changing dude's. I love the Matt Ryan move but that was a trade. Same for the Buckner move - it was a trade though. When Grigson went for Free Agents he was getting washed up players like Andre Johnson who was damn near 33 years old at WR. Can't do that. No matter how much I talk some in here will still never get it. They will say what about Ballard in ability to draft WR's and CB's so just save it.

I agree with you, except I think Grigson was terrible. Yes, he did have some nice draft picks here and there and he had a few good moves (trading for Vontae Davis or signing Mathew Adams etc.), but as you mentioned, the list of mistakes he made.... Richardson was just the icing on the cake. From drafting Dorsett to signing Andre Johnson, Arthur Jones, RJF, Akeem Hicks, good gosh. Even those, who were okay (Trent Cole, Redding) were overpaid etc. And personality is part of the job 'cause it affects relations to other GM's and of course affects the locker room, so him being a jerk made him even worse GM. I't still baffling that he was GM of the year in 2012, but that was Luck I guess. Yeah he didn't miss on Luck with the very first pick, bravo. :)

 

Ballard is the polar opposite as GM. Personality wise as well as how he's operating. He isn't perfect of course. Nobody is. He makes his mistakes. But all in all, the number of mistakes compared to the good moves he has done is not even in the same ballpark where Grigson was. Ballard is one of the best in his position, and I think, by now, this is practically a consensus (judged by 5-6 years, not just one having the 1/1 pick and a Luck coming out of the dradt).

 

Regarding game changing free agents, I'm not sure honestly. True game changing talents won't become free agents often. You have to trade for them. Look at the WR position for example. Who were the top 10 free agent wide receivers last year? Kenny Golladay, Curtis Samuel, Corey Davis, Nelson Agholor, T.Y., Juju, A.J. Green, Marvin Jones, Emmanuel Sanders, Kendrick Bourne. This year it is Christian Kirk, Allen Robinson, Valdes-Scantling, Russell Gage, D.J. Chark, Zaj Jones and Julio and Landry will join them soon. Is there a game changing name amongst them, in the current state of their carreer? Even Allen Robinson. I wanted him in Colts uniform ever since he left the Jaguars, no doubt that he is uber talented but ... is he even a top20 in his position? He's been in the league for 8 years now, he had only 3 seasons when he played all 16 games, he had only 3 1000 yard seasons. That's not #1 numbers.

 

Yeah, of course, he can be "that last piece". But in my book being "that last piece" not equals "game changer". That last piece can be a veteran Emmanuel Sanders or a clutch kicker if he land at the right time at the right place. But that's a different thing. When it comes to "game changing free agent" I expect excellency, I expect leadership, I expect elite-ish production. And I expect it for years, not for one playoff run etc. That's a game changer free agent. And I think this kind of free agent is very rare. Teams have way too many ways to manage their cap situation so they keep their game changers most of the time. And if they don't, they want to trade them instead of just letting them be free agents.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2022 at 11:50 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I am glad you posted this because I was just trying to be nice to the people that love Grigson. I was starting to feel like a butt by calling Grigson bad with a few saying he was just as good as Ballard.

 

Grigson was awful, not average. Most would agree.  He is exactly the kind of GM that I don't like, throwing money at players to fill a need without looking at the whole picture and having a plan. Besides drafting Andrew Luck (no brainer there), Hilton and Kelly, I cannot recall many good draft picks. The Dorsett pick was glaringly bad, given the holes on the team and WR clearly was not. Grigson could have selected a WR later. (I believe that was the draft with Lockett and Diggs.)

 

I'm not pleased that the Vikings hired him. I hope he does not have too much influence on draft decisions. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2022 at 4:09 PM, shasta519 said:

Let’s get one thing straight. He might not have been a good GM, Grigson did NOT ruin Luck’s career. His contribution was no larger than anybody else. And blaming it on Grigson is just irrational. 

I agree, Grigson did not ruin Luck's carreer. (If there's someone to blame, blame Bruce Arians insteads. The way he used his quarterbacks was silly & dangerous to his QB-s.) Not that this would make Grigson better. He was terrible.

 

On 4/12/2022 at 1:34 PM, cdgacoltsfan said:

Grigson...2 division titles ..3 playoff wins.

Ballard.....hmmm...0 division titles...oops..1 playoff win ..5 years

Andy Reid & John Dorsey won 0 division titles and 0 playoff games - lost 2, one against Luck - in their first 4 years. And the only reason they won in their 5th year because Carr got injured & the Raiders lost their last regular season game with McGloin. Then, they drafted Mahomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its tough to do a direct comparisons between GMs that have had different tenures, RG, CB, and Polian, because each had more or less time to make decisions about players.  Paye and Dayo were drafted in years that RG didn't have.  Polian had many years to add core players at important positions.

 

This might be a good big picture look at this RG vs CB that seems to be important in some circles:  Please correct, or add more players if I missed some...its been a long time .

 

And weirdly, these comparisons align with both positions and draft capital.  Interesting.

 

RG selects Werner 24.  CB selects Ben and Turay in the 50s.  Generally, two second round picks equals one low first, so these decisions are a push.

 

RG selects Dorsett at 30 and CB selects PC in the 50s.  We think PC is the better player.  Think.  Dorsett did hang around the NFL and made some contributions.  He was traded for our backup QB and the guy who CB thought should have been our starting QB in 2019, so how bad was Dorsett....despite the narrative?

 

RG trades a high second round pick for Vontae.  CB trades pick 13 for Buck

 

RG selects Kelly at 18 .  CB selects Nelson at 6.

 

RG trades up to the bottom of the second to select TY.  CB selects Pitt at the top of the 2nd.

 

RG finds Doyle as an UDFA.  CB finds MAC as an UDFA.

 

RG whiffs on Art Jones.  CB whiffs on Jonathan Hankins.

 

RG signs Erik Walden, Ricky Jean Francois, Cory Redding to team friendly contracts.  CB signs Autry, Houston, Rhodes, to team friendly contracts.  There are a bunch of other FA signings by both GMs,  Andre, Landry, Simon, Hunt, Toler, Funchess, etc that fall into the category of gap fillers who's contributions were both good and not so good while here.  None of these mid level signings presented any meaningful lingering salary cap issues that prevented future team maneuverability.

 

RG signs Gosder.  CB signs Fisher.

 

What is the big difference here:

 

RG trades a low first for a TRich who was selected at pick 3.  CB trades up to select JT at 41. 

 

RG drafts Holmes and Thortnton.  CB drafts Smith and signs Glow.

 

RG never finds an ILB.  CB drafts Leonard.

 

JT, Smith, Glow (who isn't here now), and Leonard.  That's how the difference boils down to, IMO.  Better RB, better RT, better ILB.  Lower valued positions.  No big hits on the important ones over RG.

 

And, I'm not sure where Malik Hooker fits in to the comparison.

 

RG had a franchise QB handed to him....is that his fault....a negative, that he wasn't allowed to draft Luck?  Ballard has had to navigate the QB situations and has had his ups and downs.  Traded for Wentz, handed JB the starting job.  Added Rivers and now Ryan.

 

Just trying to see how people can land at an opinion of "polar opposites" or that one is terrible while the other is wonderful.  And has others point out, the won loss record and playoff achievements don't support a huge difference in opinions either.

 

Maybe there are some big pieces to this big picture look I missed.  Please point them out.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2022 at 11:44 AM, cdgacoltsfan said:

Lucks been gone for awhile now. Time to move on from the Luck excuse.

Not really it set us back 5 years. Also I love it when you say Grigson = 2 Division Titles, 3 Playoff wins. Ballard = 0 Division Titles, 1 Playoff win. By your logic, Trent Dilfer is better than Dan Marino, Dilfer 1-0 when it comes to SB wins. See how silly that sounds. I get it, you can't stand Ballard and would rather have Grigson. You are in the minority I hate to tell ya. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, DougDew said:

RG trades a low first for a TRich who was selected at pick 3.  CB trades up to select JT at 41. 

 

 

59 minutes ago, DougDew said:

And, I'm not sure where Malik Hooker fits in to the comparison.

These comparisons aren't perfect.  I was trying to keep the player positions fairly aligned.  Maybe a better way to look at it is that RG used a low 1st round pick for TRich and CB used pick 15 for Hooker.    JT is a bonus point for CB because he traded down in his drafts and got extra picks that RG never did.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Not really it set us back 5 years. Also I love it when you say Grigson = 2 Division Titles, 3 Playoff wins. Ballard = 0 Division Titles, 1 Playoff win. By your logic, Trent Dilfer is better than Dan Marino, Dilfer 1-0 when it comes to SB wins. See how silly that sounds. I get it, you can't stand Ballard and would rather have Grigson. You are in the minority I hate to tell ya. 

Ok, lets play the what-if game with Luck and RG.  Lets say that Irsay stuck with RG and fired Pagano instead, so RG has to deal with Luck's surgery and sudden retirement over a sore leg.  Its reasonable to assume that the shoulder is what it is, and that a player needs to have surgery on it at the time he does and who the GM happens to be doesn't change a shoulder.

 

RG was bolder than CB, for better or worse, he swung harder.   I would say that given RG as the GM and the Luck retirement, there is a good chance that Jordan Love would be our starting QB right now.....for better or for worse.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Ok, lets play the what-if game with Luck and RG.  Lets say that Irsay stuck with RG and fired Pagano instead, so RG has to deal with Luck's surgery and sudden retirement over a sore leg.  Its reasonable to assume that the shoulder is what it is, and that a player needs to have surgery on it at the time he does and who the GM happens to be doesn't change a shoulder.

 

RG was bolder than CB, for better or worse, he swung harder.   I would say that given RG as the GM and the Luck retirement, there is a good chance that Jordan Love would be our starting QB right now.....for better or for worse.

Jordan Love would've been a bad pick. Nothing has shown he can be productive at the NFL level. I am glad we went with Rivers and now have Ryan. I wasn't for the Wentz trade so yeah Ballard is partly to blame for that one. I think the main reason why we traded for Wentz was because Reich wanted him badly and convinced Ballard we could win with him. Matt Ryan would've won 11 or 12 games with last years team IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Jordan Love would've been a bad pick. Nothing has shown he can be productive at the NFL level. I am glad we went with Rivers and now have Ryan. I wasn't for the Wentz trade so yeah Ballard is partly to blame for that one. I think the main reason why we traded for Wentz was because Reich wanted him badly and convinced Ballard we could win with him. Matt Ryan would've won 11 or 12 games with last years team IMO.

There is a discussion from time to time about how the Luck retirement should have been handled.  Should CB have found his franchise QB right away or kind of bump along with vet stop gaps.  I'm not arguing either one.  I was just saying that if RG was GM, he would have been more likely to make the bold move for Love.....or the better move up for Herbert....or the bad move up for Tua.   Its not a better or worse thing, just a speculation about where we would be with the QB situation under RG, considering the GM had nothing to do with Luck choosing to retire. 

 

It was just a thought thrown out there on a boring Saturday morning.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

These comparisons aren't perfect.  I was trying to keep the player positions fairly aligned.  Maybe a better way to look at it is that RG used a low 1st round pick for TRich and CB used pick 15 for Hooker.    JT is a bonus point for CB because he traded down in his drafts and got extra picks that RG never did.  

Well, you are right, these comparision are actually bad. :D

 

I get what you are trying to do though. But you don't need to. People have done this already, in number of different ways (using draft resources spent vs average AV in return, efficiency relative to average etc.), and all came to the same conclusion: Grigson was one of the worst drafter during his 5 years span (if you remove Luck), and Ballard was one of the best, if not the best. Regarding free agency, it was the same. Grigson had way too many costly mistakes, Ballard had much less. Regarding how much resources the 2 have spent on one quality snap gained, Grigson was one of the most ineffective spender, and Ballard is one of the most effective. (Ultimately the only measue that matters is this. How much you spend for one quality snap. Because eventually every team, every GM will spend the same => they all spend the cap, but not more on multi year average).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

Well, you are right, these comparision are actually bad. :D

 

I get what you are trying to do though. But you don't need to. People have done this already, in number of different ways (using draft resources spent vs average AV in return, efficiency relative to average etc.), and all came to the same conclusion: Grigson was one of the worst drafter during his 5 years span (if you remove Luck), and Ballard was one of the best, if not the best. Regarding free agency, it was the same. Grigson had way too many costly mistakes, Ballard had much less. Regarding how much resources the 2 have spent on one quality snap gained, Grigson was one of the most ineffective spender, and Ballard is one of the most effective. (Ultimately the only measue that matters is this. How much you spend for one quality snap. Because eventually every team, every GM will spend the same => they all spend the cap, but not more on multi year average).

People have done what already?  I've never seen anything laid out pick by pick, signing by signing, just the narrative that somebody did it and came to the conclusion that one was terrible and one was wonderful, and that it was settled long ago by experts.   That, in fact, was the conclusion about two months after Ballard got here.

 

Example where robotic statistical looks mean little:  There was a lot of criticism of the Andre Johnson signing.  that was a signing where we were making a push to get into the super bowl...not just win the division.  RG spent as much as he had to  to secure him.  It was the last signing for the build and what cap space was used was irrelevant as long as it did not create dead cap hit.  It did not.  So if someone were to perform a robotic statistical analysis of "bang for buck", AJ would rank really low.  But it doesn't matter because the only important issue at the time was getting players who were on the market at the time on board to make a deeper playoff push.  If anybody has not taken the situation into consideration before criticizing the AJ signing, they simply don't know what their talking about.

 

Again, we can go through each FA signing from RG and CB, and they would all fit into the same description as mid level players with a up and down impact that led to no material advancement in the playoffs unless Luck was the QB.  That sounds more like close to equal GMs than hugely disparate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

People have done what already?  I've never seen anything laid out pick by pick, signing by signing, just the narrative that somebody did it and came to the conclusion that one was terrible and one was wonderful, and that it was settled long ago by experts.   That, in fact, was the conclusion about two months after Ballard got here.

 

Example where robotic statistical looks mean little:  There was a lot of criticism of the Andre Johnson signing.  that was a signing where we were making a push to get into the super bowl...not just win the division.  RG spent as much as he had to  to secure him.  It was the last signing for the build and what cap space was used was irrelevant as long as it did not create dead cap hit.  It did not.  So if someone were to perform a robotic statistical analysis of "bang for buck", AJ would rank really low.  But it doesn't matter because the only important issue at the time was getting players who were on the market at the time on board to make a deeper playoff push.  If anybody has not taken the situation into consideration before criticizing the AJ signing, they simply don't know what their talking about.

 

Again, we can go through each FA signing from RG and CB, and they would all fit into the same description as mid level players with a up and down impact that led to no material advancement in the playoffs unless Luck was the QB.  That sounds more like close to equal GMs than hugely disparate. 


I think anyone who creates their own formula where the outcome is roughly Ryan Grigson and Chris Ballard are pretty close to the same has an agenda and is selling something.  
 

Fortunately there don’t appear to be many subscribers to this unique point of view. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:


I think anyone who creates their own formula where the outcome is roughly Ryan Grigson and Chris Ballard are pretty close to the same has an agenda and is selling something.  
 

Fortunately there don’t appear to be many subscribers to this unique point of view. 

There sadly are some though. Kind of mind-boggling to be honest. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:


I think anyone who creates their own formula where the outcome is roughly Ryan Grigson and Chris Ballard are pretty close to the same has an agenda and is selling something.  
 

Fortunately there don’t appear to be many subscribers to this unique point of view. 

I’m one of those that doesn’t think Grigson is to blame for Luck.  I think Luck just wasn’t really into football and would have retired early no matter what GM we had. That’s ok. 
 

Grigson wasn’t a good GM but I will admit the guy went for it.  He swung for the fence but like all big swingers he struck out a lot.  He did very well operating the salary cap and we weren’t saddled with dead money like Polian’s son did.  He had a decent run but he was a total jerk and his misses added up and that got him fired. 
 

Ballard is clearly the better GM. Still, if he wants to go down as a great GM he will need to pick a QB in the draft. He knows this and taking his time. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2022 at 9:11 PM, AwesomeAustin said:

I’m one of those that doesn’t think Grigson is to blame for Luck.  I think Luck just wasn’t really into football and would have retired early no matter what GM we had. That’s ok. 
 

Grigson wasn’t a good GM but I will admit the guy went for it.  He swung for the fence but like all big swingers he struck out a lot.  He did very well operating the salary cap and we weren’t saddled with dead money like Polian’s son did.  He had a decent run but he was a total jerk and his misses added up and that got him fired. 
 

Ballard is clearly the better GM. Still, if he wants to go down as a great GM he will need to pick a QB in the draft. He knows this and taking his time. 

If Grigson had been more successful at putting an o-line around Luck, Andrew would have still held on to the ball too long, looked for the big play, and gotten himself hurt. If Luck had done more to help by working on and improving his short game, it would have made the Colts better, but not good enough to overcome Grigson's G.M. abilities.

 

I blame them both. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

If Grigson had been more successful at putting an o-line around Luck, Andrew would have still held on to the ball too long, looked for the big play, and gotten himself hurt. If Luck had done more to help by working on and improving his short game, it would have made the Colts better, but not good enough to overcome Grigson's G.M. abilities.

 

I blame them both. 

I see your angle and think that it’s a good take.  I think Luck had a little bit to do with that line being judged as poor. Wasn’t until he played for Reich that he started doing quicker releases. 
 

I think our OL rating will go up this year with a new RG and backup LT.  Combination of obviously health and now Wentz won’t be holding onto the ball looking for the big play. 
 

It was just not a good combination of Grigson, Pagano and Luck.  Who knows what would of happened if things were different but I do know people are who they are and history repeats itself. 
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AwesomeAustin said:

I see your angle and think that it’s a good take.  I think Luck had a little bit to do with that line being judged as poor. Wasn’t until he played for Reich that he started doing quicker releases. 
 

I think our OL rating will go up this year with a new RG and backup LT.  Combination of obviously health and now Wentz won’t be holding onto the ball looking for the big play. 
 

It was just not a good combination of Grigson, Pagano and Luck.  Who knows what would of happened if things were different but I do know people are who they are and history repeats itself. 
 

 

I think if Luck had Ballard and Reich from the beginning, Luck would've had a Hall of Fame career and won a SB by now. JMO. He still may have retired early but would've played at least 10 years.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think if Luck had Ballard and Reich from the beginning, Luck would've had a Hall of Fame career and won a SB by now. JMO. He still may have retired early but would've played at least 10 years.

It’s nice and frustrating to think that. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think if Luck had Ballard and Reich from the beginning, Luck would've had a Hall of Fame career and won a SB by now. JMO. He still may have retired early but would've played at least 10 years.

Doubtful. Luck was more into this:

Animated GIF

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2022 at 8:12 AM, Peterk2011 said:

I agree, Grigson did not ruin Luck's carreer. (If there's someone to blame, blame Bruce Arians insteads. The way he used his quarterbacks was silly & dangerous to his QB-s.) Not that this would make Grigson better. He was terrible.

 

Andy Reid & John Dorsey won 0 division titles and 0 playoff games - lost 2, one against Luck - in their first 4 years. And the only reason they won in their 5th year because Carr got injured & the Raiders lost their last regular season game with McGloin. Then, they drafted Mahomes.

 

To your point, KC was a playoff team, but not a contender...until Mahomes was drafted.

 

Who was the #2 in the KC FO for much of that time with Reid and Dorsey?

 

And if you look at KC (2013-16) and IND (2017-21), there are seemingly similarities from a philosophical standpoint to roster construction to even team success:

  • Offense
    • Strong run game (rush DVOA)
      • KC was #6, #5, #1, #20 
      • IND has been #13, #8, #12, #2
    • Decent/middle of the pack passing game (pass DVOA)
      • KC was #17, #15, #11, #12 
      • IND has been #11, #25, #16, #20
  • QB position
    • Addressed with veterans instead of the draft
  • Defense
    • Different schemes, but both defenses built around turning the ball over
    • KC had 3 season inside the top 7 in sacks; hopefully the Colts will see those results this season
  • Draft
    • Focus on DL and OL picks early
    • Focus on secondary picks somewhat early
    • Less emphasis on WR early
  • Team Success
    • KC (2013-2016)
      • 43-21 regular season record
      • 1 division title
      • 3 playoff appearances
      • 1 playoff win (against HOU)
    • IND (2018-21)
      • 37-28 regular season record
      • O division titles
      • 2 playoff appearances
      • 1 playoff win (also against HOU)

Perhaps just a coincidence, but the current Colts teams very much have a similar feel to those KC teams. Lots of big names and PB nods, but not much in the way of playoff success (yet).

 

But if I really wanted to be controversial, I would look at all of this and say that it seems like Ballard is building a less successful version of those KC Chiefs teams.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think if Luck had Ballard and Reich from the beginning, Luck would've had a Hall of Fame career and won a SB by now. JMO. He still may have retired early but would've played at least 10 years.

 

Well, Ballard was still a scout and Reich was a WR coach when Luck entered the league. So I think it could have just as easily gone the other way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2022 at 12:11 AM, AwesomeAustin said:

I’m one of those that doesn’t think Grigson is to blame for Luck.  I think Luck just wasn’t really into football and would have retired early no matter what GM we had. That’s ok. 
 

Grigson wasn’t a good GM but I will admit the guy went for it.  He swung for the fence but like all big swingers he struck out a lot.  He did very well operating the salary cap and we weren’t saddled with dead money like Polian’s son did.  He had a decent run but he was a total jerk and his misses added up and that got him fired. 
 

Ballard is clearly the better GM. Still, if he wants to go down as a great GM he will need to pick a QB in the draft. He knows this and taking his time. 

 

This is one of the more rational Grigson posts I have seen from a Colts fan. Much appreciated.

 

Like you, I don't think Grigson was evil reincarnate. I think he was just a guy who had a chance to do something special and couldn't get it done. But the ride along the way was lots of fun.

 

Grigson went for it because his boss wanted him to AND because he had a great QB on a cheap rookie deal. IIRC, he was one of the first to employ that approach and it was the correct approach, just not good execution.

 

But if you had to turn over nearly an entire roster AND compete immediately, you would use FA too. There was no time or capital to stack drafts. I don't know why that approach has since become a punchline. Some of the players, sure, but not the approach. 

 

He is, however, responsible for unsuccessfully building the OL. That held the team back, especially in the running game. But I also don't think we should ignore that injuries did him no favors there. Colts fans all saw last year what injuries can do to the pass blocking of even a great OL. 

 

Hopefully, the OL injuries aren't a trend like they have been in the past. 

 

We should be able to agree Grigson had success here and should therefore get some of the credit. But since he's the scapegoat (for a big part of this fanbase) for losing Luck early, that will never be the case.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2022 at 10:24 PM, GoColts8818 said:

When people blame Grigson for ruining Luck’s career it’s for failing to put together a line to protect him.  Not having quality of players falls on the GMs shoulders.  

 

But this is correlation, not causation. 

 

Luck played his best football in 2016 (with the torn labrum) and 2018 (post labrum surgery). His career wasn't ruined. It was actually on the rise and then he made the decision to walk away, even though he now had an OL to protect him.


If we are blaming Grigson for Luck's injuries, it was actually the one shoulder injury. And I believe it happened on a play where three TEN players ganged up and threw him down and then piled up on him, which would be flagged now for UR (4Q at 7:40 mark against TEN in Week 3, 2015).

 

But even with the protections now in place, QBs can and do get hurt. JB in 2019 is a great example.

 

Other QBs play a lot longer and take far more hits...and don't get hurt like Luck did.

 

It was Grigson's job to put together a good OL, but it was also the coaches job to scheme around their strengths and weaknesses, on the OL players to stay healthy and perform...and on Luck to protect himself. And even when everyone does their job, % still happens in football. 

 

And what if it was a good player like AC who missed the block that got Luck hurt? Or even a guy like Mewhort or Reitz, who were also quality OL players? How is that the GM's fault?

 

Not trying to be clever, it was just bad luck what happened to Luck. And then it got exacerbated by a surgery rehab that took 18 months.  

 

I have said my piece on this, but none of this narrative will ever be rational to me. Just seems like Grigson gets to be the scapegoat because most of the fanbase needs someone to blame or some explanation to better understand why Andrew Luck is no longer the Colts QB anymore. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AwesomeAustin said:

Do you think he would have stayed if he had a better snowboarding coach?  

 

No, if he had a better snowboarding coach he would have enjoyed snowboarding more and left the NFL even earlier than he did. :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2022 at 1:02 AM, Zoltan said:

I can’t wait for the day of Luck and snowboarding isn’t mentioned on the board. It’s time to move on guys

 

IMO, More snowboarding posts would be better. Perhaps in it's own thread though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ballard plays scared. Being calculated and measured can turn to being apprehensive and timid very quickly. "Take the layups" is certainly his approach. 

 

I was not a fan of Grigson, but the analysis above is spot on. Shooters shoot, and I think Ballard is afraid to draft a QB. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say this. I think if we double down on pass catchers early in the draft next week I think we are a contender. After all this played out he was actually lucky and aggressive this offseason. Now the key will be to help the offense in the draft and not start the season slow.  It’s going to be hard to catch back up with a loaded AFC. I think the colts being so close is a big reason no one is super excited for the draft. We don’t need a lot.

 

I also can’t tell you how huge it was that Eberflus got that head coaching job. The moves we made on defense would not of happened with Eberflus. Bradley’s defense is going to be so much more nuanced.  It’s going to be so nice to see our edge players just attack and go after the QB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://nypost.com/2022/04/23/five-year-nfl-draft-analysis-colts-steelers-picked-way-into-elite-company

 

I thought this was an interesting article and appropriate to place here.  I'll admit there are many including myself who question what Ballard is doing in free agency sometimes but he has been doing a decent job of drafting players if this article is any  indication of success.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Aww that really sucks. Fingers crossed he comes back strong next year - he deserves it. 
    • Sweet, Ya you got the spot.    Dm the email you want me to send the invite to.  You've been around a long time, glad to have you on board. 
    • It’s one practice.    One.    And from one practice you’ve extrapolated that this will be a problem all season long and we’ll miss the playoffs.    All from one practice.    I think you’re reading way too much into way too little.   Is it possible you’re right?  Sure. But it’s not likely.       OL play is typically slow to come around.   It takes time to gel.    Whatever the line is today, it should get better over time.    It started slow last year when injuries hit 4 of our 5 starting lineman.  But eventually the line gelled and Taylor ran for 1800 yards.   Remember?    This year we have two new starters on the line.   It’s going to take time.  Give it time.  
    • Im not a big fan of responding to a post with a mountain if stats, but these are pretty simple and straight forward.   Matt Ryan has 100 completions in 12 practices of 11 on 11 drills.   Thus doesn’t include 7 on 7 or any other drills, just 11 on 11.    Here’s how the receptions breakdown:   1.   Pittman    30 2.  Granson   14 3.  MAC.         13 4.  Taylor.        11 5.   Hines.       10 6.   Campbell.  8 7.    Pierce.       5 8.   Dulin.         4 9.   Ogletree.   3 10.  Patmon.    1 11.  Coutee.     1   That's 100 receptions.   Campbell is right in the middle of the group.   And 4 of the 5 WRs with fewer receptions are behind him.  PC is NOT having a quiet camp.   This is misinformation and bad analysis.   About 10 days ago fans here were predicting Granson wouldn’t make the 53.   How does that look now?    Could PC get cut?   Sure.  But it’s a long shot.  
    • Classy reaction from the kid. Best of luck in your recovery!
  • Members

    • NewColtsFan

      NewColtsFan 14,374

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Kirie89

      Kirie89 6

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • CR91

      CR91 9,806

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Trace Pyott

      Trace Pyott 231

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DoubleE Colt

      DoubleE Colt 150

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...