Colts sign another safety: Rodney McLeod

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Four2itus said:

You missed my point entirely. Thanks to @Shive for the eloquent response. He responded as well as I could have, if not better.

 

 

Tell me, if you could view a poll by the G.M.s in the league right now....and they voted Ballard to be in the top ten, would you change your view or would you maintain your status quo?

I would vote Ballard in the top ten at drafting and that's it. I like his personality, charisma, and mic skills as a GM. He's a good and confident guy that can draft very well, but he won't change anything about his approach when he is wrong about something. He'll double down on it. I expect two things from him. Effort, and adapt as a GM when what you are doing isn't working. I'm not seeing either at this point. 

 

So I guess it depends what he rated top ten at. Drafting I agree. Trades he is good at. FA no. He is just way too conservative for me, and the constant band-aiding of QBs and not taking any risks is making me not want to watch any games this year.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

You and a few other posters are living or dying by that "Armchair GM" argument to defend Ballard, aren't you? I've said this numerous times: it isn't Ballard Vs the fans of the team, it is Ballard Vs 31 other GMs. Those are the 31 men he has to outsmart to win a SB, not you or I or anyone else that's an NFL fan. Also, fans generally don't think they are smarter than the GMs (at least myself anyway). We do provide examples of what other GMs that are more successful have done, however, and apply those situation to what Ballard should similarly do to adapt to the modern NFL.

 

Taking shots at the fans is in poor taste. What we should be doing is ranking Ballard among his peers as a GM. Right now he is 41-40 in the regular season, and 1-2 in the playoffs in 5 years. That's basically a .500 GM. He has also never won what is probably the easiest division in football since being the GM in 2017. Don't forget 5 QBs in 5 years now as well, and the 5th QB in Matt Ryan we have will be 37 in May. 

 

You want to say he is better than the fans, that's fine. Even Ryan Grigson is better than the fans. That's a low bar to set. IMO, we need to compare him to 31 other GMs that think and operate like him to get a fair comparision, and in that respect, Ballard is a middle-of-the-road, conservative .500 GM, that is a one-trick-pony, that relies on the draft to build a team.

I think anyone who calls Ballard a 41-40 GM has an agenda.   They’re selling something.   They don’t like Ballard and are trying to make a case against him. 
 

He didn’t have a coach of his choosing in 2017.   Nor the coordinators.   Nor the quarterback.    Does 2017 count on Ballard’s record?   Of course it does.   But if you understand football at all you can’t blame Ballard for that year.   The ingredients were baked into that cake almost from the start.  
 

 

[cdgacoltsfan]

21 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think anyone who calls Ballard a 41-40 GM has an agenda.   They’re selling something.   They don’t like Ballard and are trying to make a case against him. 
 

He didn’t have a coach of his choosing in 2017.   Nor the coordinators.   Nor the quarterback.    Does 2017 count on Ballard’s record?   Of course it does.   But if you understand football at all you can’t blame Ballard for that year.   The ingredients were baked into that cake almost from the start.  
 

 

Ok...throw out his worst season and best season. What do you have??? A .500 GM with 1 playoff win and 0 division titles in a weak division.

[Shive]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

We do have strong opinions because this forum is probably full of some of the most knowledgeable Colts fans in the world. We aren't GM smart, but we know the Colts well at a minimum, and a good number of us (myself included) know a lot about the other players in the league. Also, with the internet and google available to us, it's easy to form an intelligent opinion that the previous generations may not of been able to have on the fly.

 

I don't disagree with the fact that fans are more knowledgeable now than they ever were, but with that knowledge comes the belief that we know how to build a successful roster, but have none of the barriers that a GM actually has.

 

We say Ballard should have signed X, Y, and Z in FA and come to the conclusion that Ballard is a mediocre/bad GM when he doesn't, yet we don't factor in any of the complex workings of free agency or roster building. We see that a FA signed X contract with another team and immediately come to the conclusion that it's Ballard's fault that we never even tried to get this guy and that we could have had him for the contract he signed elsewhere. Incorrect. We don't know if the player wanted to actually move to Indy, sees himself as a fit in our scheme/on our roster, or even if they would take the same deal they signed elsewhere here. There are so many unknowns that we as fans jump to conclusions over, but the reality is that we have no clue about anything on the back end of things and every decision we say should be made is done so without the weight of your career being on the line. I'm not saying Ballard should be ultra-conservative with roster building, but he has his philosophy that he's come out and told everyone year after year. For some reason, people expect something different. I get that if something isn't working, you should do something different, but he's done an amazing job with drafting and making trades for talented players. The only glaring issue with Ballard is the QB situation, but I honestly don't know how you play it any differently than he did given the circumstances at the time, without the benefit of hindsight. We finally have some stability at the position 

 

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

As far as ranking Ballard, I gave numerous ways, his win/loss record, playoff record, not ever winning the division, and the 5 QBs in 5 years.

Those numerous ways all come back to win/loss. All I'm saying is that there's more that goes into evaluating the performance of a GM than purely wins/losses. If we go 11-6 in the regular season (that puts him at 52-46 record) and go on to the AFC Championship game this season, does that still mean he's a mediocre GM?

 

4 minutes ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

Ok...throw out his worst season and best season. What do you have??? A .500 GM with 1 playoff win and 0 division titles in a weak division.

The Titans were the #1 seed in the AFC, I'd hardly call that a weak division. Even though 2 of the 4 teams were bad, the 3rd team was hardly weak.

[Yoshinator]

16 minutes ago, Shive said:

 

I don't disagree with the fact that fans are more knowledgeable now than they ever were, but with that knowledge comes the belief that we know how to build a successful roster, but have none of the barriers that a GM actually has.

 

We say Ballard should have signed X, Y, and Z in FA and come to the conclusion that Ballard is a mediocre/bad GM when he doesn't, yet we don't factor in any of the complex workings of free agency or roster building. We see that a FA signed X contract with another team and immediately come to the conclusion that it's Ballard's fault that we never even tried to get this guy and that we could have had him for the contract he signed elsewhere. Incorrect. We don't know if the player wanted to actually move to Indy, sees himself as a fit in our scheme/on our roster, or even if they would take the same deal they signed elsewhere here. There are so many unknowns that we as fans jump to conclusions over, but the reality is that we have no clue about anything on the back end of things and every decision we say should be made is done so without the weight of your career being on the line. I'm not saying Ballard should be ultra-conservative with roster building, but he has his philosophy that he's come out and told everyone year after year. For some reason, people expect something different. I get that if something isn't working, you should do something different, but he's done an amazing job with drafting and making trades for talented players. The only glaring issue with Ballard is the QB situation, but I honestly don't know how you play it any differently than he did given the circumstances at the time, without the benefit of hindsight. We finally have some stability at the position 

 

Those numerous ways all come back to win/loss. All I'm saying is that there's more that goes into evaluating the performance of a GM than purely wins/losses. If we go 11-6 in the regular season (that puts him at 52-46 record) and go on to the AFC Championship game this season, does that still mean he's a mediocre GM?

 

The Titans were the #1 seed in the AFC, I'd hardly call that a weak division. Even though 2 of the 4 teams were bad, the 3rd team was hardly weak.

This is a good post. Thanks for meeting me halfway. All I can say is, I don't expect Ballard to necessarily do an exact signing that I would do to the T, but I would like him to do something that would benefit the team within reason (sign some sort of WR and possibly a TE and get a CB to replace Rock (Facyson doesn't do it)). When I want him to do something or change, it's because I'm basing it off other GMs and what they did that was successful, and I wish Ballard would emulate that.

 

As far as winning the last two games and not being a mediocre GM, it would of helped a lot, especially if we won a playoff game or two. If we would of been the 2021 Bengals and made the SB (and lost to the Rams), I'd be very happy right now despite the loss. However, we see with both the Titans and Colts that the two top RBs in the league can't carry a team. The Titans did it without Henry most of the year, but with Tannehill they failed in the playoffs, and with Wentz, we failed in the last two games. It comes down to band-aid QBs, but only halfway going for it. It's a halfway effort IMO. Go for it, or tank for a top 5 pick. Don't be mediocre though and leave Matt Ryan with a worse offense than what Wentz had. At this point, it looks like we are relying on a draft with no 1st rounder, and that makes me very nervous.

[Shive]

28 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

This is a good post. Thanks for meeting me halfway. All I can say is, I don't expect Ballard to necessarily do an exact signing that I would do to the T, but I would like him to do something that would benefit the team within reason (sign some sort of WR and possibly a TE and get a CB to replace Rock (Facyson doesn't do it)).

I get the reason we haven't signed a WR or TE. The FA WR market is insane, so I would've been a bit cautious with aggressively pursuing a FA WR. The TE market wasn't great at all either. The top 2 FA TEs were tagged, which left not much to pick from. I'm also from the mindset that Ryan will actually properly utilize our existing WRs in a way that Wentz never could. That in itself will help a ton and I think we get someone from the draft as well. As for CB, I can see Facyson as one of our starting CBs. He's not traditionally what we'd look for in a CB1, but I think for Bradley's system, he fits the bill. I could still see us bringing in Bradbury or drafting someone (still a few other FAs out there).

 

28 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

When I want him to do something or change, it's because I'm basing it off other GMs and what they did that was successful, and I wish Ballard would emulate that.

Part of why I was hoping the Bengals won the Super Bowl was because I had a feeling as soon as the Rams won, their roster building philosophy would become the one to emulate and I don't think it necessarily is. I don't think it's something that could be duplicated somewhere like Indy. LA as a city is a huge draw for free agents and players on the trade block. On a very foundational level, I very much agree with Ballard's philosophy, although there are a few missteps that I haven't been entirely happy with.

 

What's interesting with Ballard's roster building so far is the whole Luck retiring, get Rivers for a year, then we bring in Wentz at Reich's request. Almost every QB decision he's made has been because of Reich's influence until the Ryan trade. I think Ryan gives us the couple of years of stability that we've been needing to be able to take a shot on drafting a rookie to be the long-term solution.

 

He also has the odd fortune/misfortune of drafting extremely well with positions that aren't high-priorities. You take a guy like Leonard where you do hoping he ends up productive, but you end up with the top LB in the game that you can't just let walk when his first contract comes up. Then you have Nelson that is arguably the best G in the league that you can't let walk either. Do you let all-pros you draft walk just because they're at non-premium positions? Just to sign a FA with that cap space gained that may or may not play good. Not all-pro, but just good. It's an odd predicament to be in and I think accidentally hitting so well on non-premium positions has definitely put us into an odd space where our roster isn't built the same way a lot of other teams are. For that reason, how we approach free agency and the draft aren't necessarily going to be like other teams. I think sometimes you have to pull off a trade like the RYS for Ngakoue move. You know you can get CBs that can play well in this scheme fairly easily, but pass rushers are always harder to find. I liked RYS, but I can see the logic behind the move.

 

28 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

As far as winning the last two games and not being a mediocre GM, it would of helped a lot, especially if we won a playoff game or two. If we would of been the 2021 Bengals and made the SB (and lost to the Rams), I'd be very happy right now despite the loss.

I can appreciate you meeting me there on that.

 

28 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

However, we see with both the Titans and Colts that the two top RBs in the league can't carry a team. The Titans did it without Henry most of the year, but with Tannehill they failed in the playoffs, and with Wentz, we failed in the last two games.

I don't think they can carry a team, but I think a RB like Taylor can be the focal point of an offense if the passing game is consistently a threat. It wasn't with Wentz and it started to seem like our playcalling started to become a manifestation of Reich's loss of trust in Wentz as his QB. Either Wentz changed a lot of calls at the line that were bad calls, or Reich put the training wheels back on Wentz towards the end of the season. I think with a consistently accurate guy like Matt Ryan, we'll see a much more balanced approach that will allow the run game dominate, but still be a good compliment to our passing attack.

 

28 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

It comes down to band-aid QBs, but only halfway going for it. It's a halfway effort IMO. Go for it, or tank for a top 5 pick. Don't be mediocre though and leave Matt Ryan with a worse offense than what Wentz had. At this point, it looks like we are relying on a draft with no 1st rounder, and that makes me very nervous.

It's a tough spot to be in. You're either trading for a veteran for a ton of picks or drafting a guy that may not be ready in year 1, but you think will be really good after sitting behind Ryan for a year or 2. I think it's more likely than not that we'll be looking to draft a QB next year, and that we'll leave this year's draft with another offensive weapon or 2.

[Yoshinator]

44 minutes ago, Shive said:

I get the reason we haven't signed a WR or TE. The FA WR market is insane, so I would've been a bit cautious with aggressively pursuing a FA WR. The TE market wasn't great at all either. The top 2 FA TEs were tagged, which left not much to pick from. I'm also from the mindset that Ryan will actually properly utilize our existing WRs in a way that Wentz never could. That in itself will help a ton and I think we get someone from the draft as well. As for CB, I can see Facyson as one of our starting CBs. He's not traditionally what we'd look for in a CB1, but I think for Bradley's system, he fits the bill. I could still see us bringing in Bradbury or drafting someone (still a few other FAs out there).

 

Part of why I was hoping the Bengals won the Super Bowl was because I had a feeling as soon as the Rams won, their roster building philosophy would become the one to emulate and I don't think it necessarily is. I don't think it's something that could be duplicated somewhere like Indy. LA as a city is a huge draw for free agents and players on the trade block. On a very foundational level, I very much agree with Ballard's philosophy, although there are a few missteps that I haven't been entirely happy with.

 

What's interesting with Ballard's roster building so far is the whole Luck retiring, get Rivers for a year, then we bring in Wentz at Reich's request. Almost every QB decision he's made has been because of Reich's influence until the Ryan trade. I think Ryan gives us the couple of years of stability that we've been needing to be able to take a shot on drafting a rookie to be the long-term solution.

 

He also has the odd fortune/misfortune of drafting extremely well with positions that aren't high-priorities. You take a guy like Leonard where you do hoping he ends up productive, but you end up with the top LB in the game that you can't just let walk when his first contract comes up. Then you have Nelson that is arguably the best G in the league that you can't let walk either. Do you let all-pros you draft walk just because they're at non-premium positions? Just to sign a FA with that cap space gained that may or may not play good. Not all-pro, but just good. It's an odd predicament to be in and I think accidentally hitting so well on non-premium positions has definitely put us into an odd space where our roster isn't built the same way a lot of other teams are. For that reason, how we approach free agency and the draft aren't necessarily going to be like other teams. I think sometimes you have to pull off a trade like the RYS for Ngakoue move. You know you can get CBs that can play well in this scheme fairly easily, but pass rushers are always harder to find. I liked RYS, but I can see the logic behind the move.

 

I can appreciate you meeting me there on that.

 

I don't think they can carry a team, but I think a RB like Taylor can be the focal point of an offense if the passing game is consistently a threat. It wasn't with Wentz and it started to seem like our playcalling started to become a manifestation of Reich's loss of trust in Wentz as his QB. Either Wentz changed a lot of calls at the line that were bad calls, or Reich put the training wheels back on Wentz towards the end of the season. I think with a consistently accurate guy like Matt Ryan, we'll see a much more balanced approach that will allow the run game dominate, but still be a good compliment to our passing attack.

 

It's a tough spot to be in. You're either trading for a veteran for a ton of picks or drafting a guy that may not be ready in year 1, but you think will be really good after sitting behind Ryan for a year or 2. I think it's more likely than not that we'll be looking to draft a QB next year, and that we'll leave this year's draft with another offensive weapon or 2.

Another very nice post Shive. 

 

I do hope we bring in Bradbury. I'd pay a 5th or so and take on most of his contract to get him right now. That would mostly fix our corner woes IMO, and it'd be easy to get the 5th round pick back by trading down a few spots in the 2nd round. 

 

I wanted the Rams to win the SB because of their risk-taking, and I believed it deserved to be rewarded. I was thinking that way from an emotional standpoint because of the Braves winning the WS and me being so happy. However, you are correct that the Rams roster building philosophy is being emulated across the league this year already in trades and FA, and I commend you for seeing this ahead of time.

 

I believe Reich has had it easier than most people think with 5 different QBs now. One was Luck, two were QBs he worked with previously, and Brissett at least had experience starting on the Colts before, so it wasn't completely new to him. Matt Ryan will be a better Rivers for two years IMO. That brings me to the point of a rookie QB. Since Ballard is so good at drafting these non-premium position players that are elite that he has to pay, the best way to counteract that is to get a rookie QB in the 1st round. The problem is that Ballard didn't draft one in 2020 or 2021 in the 1st round, and we don't have a 1st rounder in 2022. This has caused the band-aid QB effect where not only are we recycling QBs on a yearly basis, we are also paying draft picks and paying 20+ million a year on that veteran QB. We need to draft a QB in the 1st round in 2023, develop him under Matt Ryan for a year, and we'll have him for cheap for 5 years while paying our top players we drafted. Trading Rock for Yannick was a good move IMO, but you need to replace Rock as well as Rhodes and Carrie. So Facyson isn't enough by himself, and Tell really is more of a S.

 

If Ryan is a top 12 QB, Taylor will be very effective because of a solid passing attack around him. Wentz was laughably bad. I would feel comfortable if we drafted a WR and TE in the first 4 rounds to help Matt Ryan out. 

 

We'll definitely look for a QB in 2023. Right now, Matt Ryan is a stopgap and a bandaid. Lets just hope that someone like a Dotson or Watson falls to 42 and we get very lucky. I'm going to be curious how Ballard pulls this draft off. I'm probably having too big of expectations, but I'm expecting multiple trade downs, and at least 2 WRs and 1 TE with 10+ overall draft picks.

 

 

 

[throwing BBZ]

1 hour ago, Shive said:

 

I don't disagree with the fact that fans are more knowledgeable now than they ever were, but with that knowledge comes the belief that we know how to build a successful roster, but have none of the barriers that a GM actually has.

 

We say Ballard should have signed X, Y, and Z in FA and come to the conclusion that Ballard is a mediocre/bad GM when he doesn't, yet we don't factor in any of the complex workings of free agency or roster building. We see that a FA signed X contract with another team and immediately come to the conclusion that it's Ballard's fault that we never even tried to get this guy and that we could have had him for the contract he signed elsewhere. Incorrect. We don't know if the player wanted to actually move to Indy, sees himself as a fit in our scheme/on our roster, or even if they would take the same deal they signed elsewhere here. There are so many unknowns that we as fans jump to conclusions over, but the reality is that we have no clue about anything on the back end of things and every decision we say should be made is done so without the weight of your career being on the line. I'm not saying Ballard should be ultra-conservative with roster building, but he has his philosophy that he's come out and told everyone year after year. For some reason, people expect something different. I get that if something isn't working, you should do something different, but he's done an amazing job with drafting and making trades for talented players. The only glaring issue with Ballard is the QB situation, but I honestly don't know how you play it any differently than he did given the circumstances at the time, without the benefit of hindsight. We finally have some stability at the position 

 

Those numerous ways all come back to win/loss. All I'm saying is that there's more that goes into evaluating the performance of a GM than purely wins/losses. If we go 11-6 in the regular season (that puts him at 52-46 record) and go on to the AFC Championship game this season, does that still mean he's a mediocre GM?

 

The Titans were the #1 seed in the AFC, I'd hardly call that a weak division. Even though 2 of the 4 teams were bad, the 3rd team was hardly weak.

 

  Take notes class, the Professor is in the house. Well done Shive.

[ChuggaBeer]

2 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

  Take notes class, the Professor is in the house. Well done Shive.

Too bad some wont listen

[throwing BBZ]

3 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I would vote Ballard in the top ten at drafting and that's it. I like his personality, charisma, and mic skills as a GM. He's a good and confident guy that can draft very well, but he won't change anything about his approach when he is wrong about something. He'll double down on it. I expect two things from him. Effort, and adapt as a GM when what you are doing isn't working. I'm not seeing either at this point. 

 

So I guess it depends what he rated top ten at. Drafting I agree. Trades he is good at. FA no. He is just way too conservative for me, and the constant band-aiding of QBs and not taking any risks is making me not want to watch any games this year.

 

  "band-aiding of QBs and not taking any risks is making me not want to watch any games this year."

   You are just so unaware. How consistent Ballard and you are. He does his thing, and with FA ongoing and still pre-draft and you are freaking out "once again" feeling hopeless over our Colts!
  The only player i wanted so far was Bobby Wagner and i do not believe he had any interest in us. We have had a very good FA period with another juicy piece, or two, coming before the draft i believe.  Things ARE looking up!!!

[Shive]

30 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Another very nice post Shive. 

 

I do hope we bring in Bradbury. I'd pay a 5th or so and take on most of his contract to get him right now. That would mostly fix our corner woes IMO, and it'd be easy to get the 5th round pick back by trading down a few spots in the 2nd round. 

 

I wanted the Rams to win the SB because of their risk-taking, and I believed it deserved to be rewarded. I was thinking that way from an emotional standpoint because of the Braves winning the WS and me being so happy. However, you are correct that the Rams roster building philosophy is being emulated across the league this year already in trades and FA, and I commend you for seeing this ahead of time.

 

I believe Reich has had it easier than most people think with 5 different QBs now. One was Luck, two were QBs he worked with previously, and Brissett at least had experience starting on the Colts before, so it wasn't completely new to him. Matt Ryan will be a better Rivers for two years IMO. That brings me to the point of a rookie QB. Since Ballard is so good at drafting these non-premium position players that are elite that he has to pay, the best way to counteract that is to get a rookie QB in the 1st round. The problem is that Ballard didn't draft one in 2020 or 2021 in the 1st round, and we don't have a 1st rounder in 2022. This has caused the band-aid QB effect where not only are we recycling QBs on a yearly basis, we are also paying draft picks and paying 20+ million a year on that veteran QB. We need to draft a QB in the 1st round in 2023, develop him under Matt Ryan for a year, and we'll have him for cheap for 5 years while paying our top players we drafted. Trading Rock for Yannick was a good move IMO, but you need to replace Rock as well as Rhodes and Carrie. So Facyson isn't enough by himself, and Tell really is more of a S.

 

If Ryan is a top 12 QB, Taylor will be very effective because of a solid passing attack around him. Wentz was laughably bad. I would feel comfortable if we drafted a WR and TE in the first 4 rounds to help Matt Ryan out. 

 

We'll definitely look for a QB in 2023. Right now, Matt Ryan is a stopgap and a bandaid. Lets just hope that someone like a Dotson or Watson falls to 42 and we get very lucky. I'm going to be curious how Ballard pulls this draft off. I'm probably having too big of expectations, but I'm expecting multiple trade downs, and at least 2 WRs and 1 TE with 10+ overall draft picks.

 

I very much agree. Dotson has been a favorite of mine, so I'd be pumped if we got him, but I've really started like like Watson too. I'd be happy with either, but I love someone so technically sound as Dotson. He could contribute from day 1. I don't want to get my hopes up, but I think this will probably be the most important draft of Ballard's tenure to date.

 

To get back on topic, I'm excited for the McLeod signing. Solid vet that will give us a quality safety rotation.

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

  "band-aiding of QBs and not taking any risks is making me not want to watch any games this year."

   You are just so unaware. How consistent Ballard and you are. He does his thing, and with FA ongoing and still pre-draft and you are freaking out "once again" feeling hopeless over our Colts!
  The only player i wanted so far was Bobby Wagner and i do not believe he had any interest in us. We have had a very good FA period with another juicy piece, or two, coming before the draft i believe.  Things ARE looking up!!!

I admit, I'm nervous. I feel we are very top heavy. What I mean by that is we have 8-10 great players, not much middle, and a lot of lower tier players. Generally, you fill the gaps of those mid-tier players in FA and the draft. We have failed to do so in FA. Now, we are relying on the draft without a 1st round pick. I don't disagree we probably improved at QB from Wentz to Ryan. The big picture though is the team is currently worse besides QB and EDGE, Matt Ryan has a worse offense around him than Wentz did, and Matt Ryan is going to be 37 in May.

 

We are operating on a two-year window with Matt Ryan. We will probably draft a QB in 2023, so that means our next two 1st round picks went towards Wentz and a possible new QB while Ryan's window is open. The issue is we are going halfway on the retool with him and not building an offense around him. Yes, we may do it in the draft, yes, Ballard may draft multiple receivers and a TE for the future this year. However, it's still a risk. Without a 1st rounder, we are at a disadvantage, and are relying on a certain amount of luck at the skill offensive positions.

 

Maybe we will be ok. Maybe we won't. We'll see. I'm hoping for the best.

[Yoshinator]

3 minutes ago, Shive said:

 

I very much agree. Dotson has been a favorite of mine, so I'd be pumped if we got him, but I've really started like like Watson too. I'd be happy with either, but I love someone so technically sound as Dotson. He could contribute from day 1. I don't want to get my hopes up, but I think this will probably be the most important draft of Ballard's tenure to date.

 

To get back on topic, I'm excited for the McLeod signing. Solid vet that will give us a quality safety rotation.

Agreed on Dotson and Watson, and agreed on McLeod. Him and Watts fix the S depth. That should be one position we don't have to address in the draft now.

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I admit, I'm nervous. I feel we are very top heavy. What I mean by that is we have 8-10 great players, not much middle, and a lot of lower tier players. Generally, you fill the gaps of those mid-tier players in FA and the draft. We have failed to do so in FA. Now, we are relying on the draft without a 1st round pick. I don't disagree we probably improved at QB from Wentz to Ryan. The big picture though is the team is currently worse besides QB and EDGE, Matt Ryan has a worse offense around him than Wentz did, and Matt Ryan is going to be 37 in May.

 

We are operating on a two-year window with Matt Ryan. We will probably draft a QB in 2023, so that means our next two 1st round picks went towards Wentz and a possible new QB while Ryan's window is open. The issue is we are going halfway on the retool with him and not building an offense around him. Yes, we may do it in the draft, yes, Ballard may draft multiple receivers and a TE for the future this year. However, it's still a risk. Without a 1st rounder, we are at a disadvantage, and are relying on a certain amount of luck at the skill offensive positions.

 

Maybe we will be ok. Maybe we won't. We'll see. I'm hoping for the best.

Free agency isn't over.   Do you really think they won't add more players ?   Goodness

[sb41champs]

Good to add veteran depth following the loss of George Odum to the Niners.

[Four2itus]

4 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

The only player i wanted so far was Bobby Wagner and i do not believe he had any interest in us. We have had a very good FA period with another juicy piece, or two, coming before the draft i believe. 

I am a huge fan of Ballard, and I love the way he constructs a roster. I hate doing the hindsight thing. If there was one decision he might have made (don't know if he tried or not), but to move up to draft Herbert. Of course, this is in hindsight, because at the time, I believe I said Justin was not going to make it as an NFL qb 

[CR91]

It's becoming more and more clear colts are swinging hard for the draft which just baffles me.

[Mr. Irrelevant]

7 hours ago, CR91 said:

It's becoming more and more clear colts are swinging hard for the draft which just baffles me.

Why would you say that when the draft actually suits our needs (maybe not OT, but still)?

[2006Coltsbestever]

15 hours ago, Four2itus said:

I am a huge fan of Ballard, and I love the way he constructs a roster. I hate doing the hindsight thing. If there was one decision he might have made (don't know if he tried or not), but to move up to draft Herbert. Of course, this is in hindsight, because at the time, I believe I said Justin was not going to make it as an NFL qb 

You aren't the only one, I also said I didn't think Herbert would be good either. He has proved me wrong.

[CR91]

16 minutes ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

Why would you say that when the draft actually suits our needs (maybe not OT, but still)?

 

Because we don't have that many picks. We have two picks in the top 100

[Boondoggle]

On 4/9/2022 at 2:48 AM, Dark Superman said:

Chris Ballard and Jim Irsay are the complete opposites when it comes to spending money on players you want on your team. Jim Irsay is the type of guy who would pay a player what it takes to get him here if he feels that guy makes the Colts a better team. There's a clear urgency to win now when it comes to Jim Irsay, but Chris Ballard seems to think he can continue to sign guys he can low ball and bring in on short cheap details while relying on a couple of draft picks to fill in as many holes as possible and expects a lot of those guys to come in week one and produce while having them on a rookie wage scale for the next four years.

Irsay doesn't strike me as the kind of owner who will allow a GM to do his own thing.  He strikes me, rather, as the kind of owner whose GM will be under his thumb.  So for any fan who maintains a list of things that they hate about Ballard, well, you can probably lump the owner in there as part of the decision process.

 

If Irsay was telling him to go sign top free agents to big deals you can bet Ballard would be doing that aggressively.  I think sometimes fans forget that GMs get paid to do jobs and that owners are just as demanding as any other boss.  It's highly unlikely that Ballard is running around being cheap while the owner sits in his office wishing he was spending more.

[Smonroe]

1 hour ago, Boondoggle said:

Irsay doesn't strike me as the kind of owner who will allow a GM to do his own thing.  He strikes me, rather, as the kind of owner whose GM will be under his thumb.  So for any fan who maintains a list of things that they hate about Ballard, well, you can probably lump the owner in there as part of the decision process.

 

If Irsay was telling him to go sign top free agents to big deals you can bet Ballard would be doing that aggressively.  I think sometimes fans forget that GMs get paid to do jobs and that owners are just as demanding as any other boss.  It's highly unlikely that Ballard is running around being cheap while the owner sits in his office wishing he was spending more.

 

I don't agree, but I don't have any more proof than you do.  

 

I think Irsay lets the GM's do their thing until he's clear that it's not working.  

 

Grigson and Ballard are polar opposites when it comes to free agency.   Do you think Irsay changed his tune with the regime change?  Irsay was a GM, you'd think he'd have a better understanding of how they do their jobs than other owners.

 

But again, I have no more proof to back up my beliefs than you.

[DougDew]

 

5 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You aren't the only one, I also said I didn't think Herbert would be good either. He has proved me wrong.

 

20 hours ago, Four2itus said:

I am a huge fan of Ballard, and I love the way he constructs a roster. I hate doing the hindsight thing. If there was one decision he might have made (don't know if he tried or not), but to move up to draft Herbert. Of course, this is in hindsight, because at the time, I believe I said Justin was not going to make it as an NFL qb 

Oh my goodness.  These posts explain a lot.

 

You guys are two of the strongest Ballard supporters here.  Now I see why.  Your evaluation skills are off. LOL.

 

Herbert was the ONLY QB I thought was worth trading up for....and you didn't even think he'd last at all? 

 

 I liked him better than Burrow, and still do even though Burrow had a very good year.

 

[DougDew]

57 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

Grigson and Ballard are polar opposites when it comes to free agency.   Do you think Irsay changed his tune with the regime change?  Irsay was a GM, you'd think he'd have a better understanding of how they do their jobs than other owners.

No they aren't.  They are pretty much the same.  Both spent more on FA when they first got here, to fill gaps that needed filled, than they did later on.  Neither signed stars to big contracts that hindered cap management. RG signed more, but how are you saying that they are polar opposites?

[Smonroe]

14 minutes ago, DougDew said:

No they aren't.  They are pretty much the same.  Both spent more on FA when they first got here, to fill gaps that needed filled, than they did later on.  Neither signed stars to big contracts that hindered cap management. RG signed more, but how are you saying that they are polar opposites?

 

Read this article, it's easier than me debating you.

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2599530-ryan-grigsons-free-agency-reliance-continues-to-haunt-the-indianapolis-colts

 

And if that's not good enough:

 

https://horseshoeheroes.com/2017/01/22/end-failed-first-round-picks-free-agent-signings-led-ryan-grigsons-firing/

 

I could go on, but I have a feeling that it would be useless.

 

 

[DougDew]

41 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Read this article, it's easier than me debating you.

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2599530-ryan-grigsons-free-agency-reliance-continues-to-haunt-the-indianapolis-colts

 

And if that's not good enough:

 

https://horseshoeheroes.com/2017/01/22/end-failed-first-round-picks-free-agent-signings-led-ryan-grigsons-firing/

 

I could go on, but I have a feeling that it would be useless.

 

 

My goodness, what constitutes support in your world looks really weird to me.

 

The articles do not support for anything you asserted.

 

They are opinion articles about Ryan Grigson signings.  Only speaks about one of the GMs, and even labels things as failures that were not. 

 

Herremans, a $2m one year deal makes Grigson a polar opposite of Ballard signing TJ Davenport to a one year deal?  Geez.

 

A big picture summary would look like this:  Grigson had a myriad of successful mid level signings, in fact, its how he built his playoff teams.  Ballard has had a myriad of successful mid level signings.  Its how he's achieved what he's achieved.  They both did more signings earlier in their tenure than later.   Grigson whiffed on Art Jones.  Ballard whiffed on Jonathon Hankins, both being interior D linemen even.  Grigson left the team with clear cap space.  If Ballard were fired tomorrow, he would equal Grigson's competence in cap management.  

 

In fact, I'd wager that when Ballard was hired, he came to his team inheriting the largest amount of cap space of any GM in NFL history.  (most GMs get fired for putting the team in cap hell...like Polian did to RG).  But that little factoid has never been researched.  LOL.

 

Polar opposites is not even close to accurate.

[jvan1973]

13 minutes ago, DougDew said:

My goodness, what constitutes support in your world looks really weird to me.

 

The articles do not support for anything you asserted.

 

They are opinion articles about Ryan Grigson signings.  Only speaks about one of the GMs, and even labels things as failures that were not. 

 

Herremans, a $2m one year deal makes Grigson a polar opposite of Ballard signing TJ Davenport to a one year deal?  Geez.

 

A big picture summary would look like this:  Grigson had a myriad of successful mid level signings, in fact, its how he built his playoff teams.  Ballard has had a myriad of successful mid level signings.  Its how he's achieved what he's achieved.  They both did more signings earlier in their tenure than later.   Grigson whiffed on Art Jones.  Ballard whiffed on Jonathon Hankins, both being interior D linemen even.  Grigson left the team with clear cap space.  If Ballard were fired tomorrow, he would equal Grigson's competence in cap management.  

 

In fact, I'd wager that when Ballard was hired, he came to his team inheriting the largest amount of cap space of any GM in NFL history.  (most GMs get fired for putting the team in cap hell...like Polian did to RG).  But that little factoid has never been researched.  LOL.

 

Polar opposites is not even close to accurate.

A generational qb was ruined under grigsons watch.   I'll use your LOL to put a stamp on the point.    I know you refuse to blame him,   but everyone disagrees 

[DougDew]

 

19 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

A generational qb was ruined under grigsons watch.   I'll use your LOL to put a stamp on the point.    I know you refuse to blame him,   but everyone disagrees 

Should have said what I was thinking.  Jvan swoops in in 3....2....1.  But I thought you were on vacation or something.

 

LOL.  Merely wondered how another member came to the conclusion that Grigs and Ballard were "polar opposites" on free agency.  He offered two articles that appear to have been written before Ballard was even hired or made any meaningful decisions.

 

Still wondering....

 

Should we compare $2m Herrimans to Davenport, or to $10m Fisher?  Who gave their failed OT starters money and who didn't?

 

Did I say LOL yet?

 

Luck didn't want to play football because of who he is.  Matt Ryan has gotten sacked more nearly each season and still wants to play at age 37.  Ryan has never been so selfish as to injure his professional sidearm while on personal recreation time.

 

At least you've come far enough along to the correct way of thinking to finally say "on Grigson's WATCH"  instead of continuing the strawman argument that blames Grigson directly.   

 

Everyone disagrees?  The poll is shifting.  The fog of the narrative is dissipating.  Its only taken about 7 years, but more people are realizing how Luck put himself at risk...especially seeing the contrast between how Rivers played and the similarity with how Wentz played.  And how investing high capital in an oline still can mean nothing.

 

Did I say....LOL yet?

[Smonroe]

34 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

A generational qb was ruined under grigsons watch.   I'll use your LOL to put a stamp on the point.    I know you refuse to blame him,   but everyone disagrees 

 

Yeah, I thought it would be useless trying to explain how Grigson and Ballard are polar opposites.  I shouldn't have wasted my time.

 

Or it could just be that "polar opposites" means something completely different to him.  

 

I know one thing, I personally think Ballard is a really good GM.  Frustrating at times, but excellent.  I never thought that about Grigson.

 

Whatever.  Go Colts!

[Boondoggle]

8 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

I don't agree, but I don't have any more proof than you do.  

 

I think Irsay lets the GM's do their thing until he's clear that it's not working.  

 

Grigson and Ballard are polar opposites when it comes to free agency.   Do you think Irsay changed his tune with the regime change?  Irsay was a GM, you'd think he'd have a better understanding of how they do their jobs than other owners.

 

But again, I have no more proof to back up my beliefs than you.

I think Irsay has changed in that he's feeling his age.  We all change with age.  And it's true none of us know what goes on in that front office, but that goes without saying.  We are all aware that we're on a fan board here.

 

Irsay has always struck me as a guy who will pony up the dough when he wants to.  But like all rich dudes he didn't get to be rich by throwing money around.  They're all probably penny pinchers in ways and I think the overall approach you see by Ballard is at the owner's discretion.

 

If Irsay wanted a more aggressive GM like say Roseman I'm sure he'd have one.  Or he'd have Ballard raising the bar on that stuff.  Bottom line here is maybe it's not all Ballard.  Fans are all over Ballard but maybe, just maybe, the owner is part of that equation and the GM plays that bad cop role.

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 hours ago, DougDew said:

 

 

Oh my goodness.  These posts explain a lot.

 

You guys are two of the strongest Ballard supporters here.  Now I see why.  Your evaluation skills are off. LOL.

 

Herbert was the ONLY QB I thought was worth trading up for....and you didn't even think he'd last at all? 

 

 I liked him better than Burrow, and still do even though Burrow had a very good year.

 

Congrats you got 1 right. I have been right on many others as well and I am sure you have been wrong on others. I know some people that wanted Ryan Leaf instead of Peyton. I also said the Browns taking Mayfield 1st was a huge mistake so pat me on the back lol 

[ShuteAt168]

On 4/11/2022 at 10:41 AM, Shive said:

I get your point, but I don't think your argument is an accurate counterpoint to the point he's making. He's not saying that Ballard only needs to be better than fans. I think what he's saying is that it's easy for us fans to have our strong opinions and objections to what Ballard is doing or not doing when we have no skin in the game. His entire career depends on the decisions he makes and we get to spout our nonsense takes about what we should or should not have done without any repercussions.

 

While your position isn't necessarily incorrect, I just don't think it's relevant to the point in the post you quoted. We all know Ballard is competing against the other 31 GMs, but that doesn't negate the point that we as fans enjoy the ability to complain from the comfort of our couches and computer chairs without having any consequences for the things we say Ballard should do or should have done. Also, I don't think ranking Ballard squarely on a wins/losses basis is necessarily indicative of his ability relative to his peers. Why isn't number of pro-bowlers or all-pros a relevant stat? It probably throws off your entire premise that Ballard is a middle of the pack GM, despite his reputation around the league as being regarded as one of the best.

I’m sure Ballard would love your idea of not being judged by wins and losses since his record is mediocre! Who cares about the number of all pros the Colts have. Who cares about his reputation. His job is to win games and the only stat that matters — wins and losses — shows he’s the definition of average. I hope the Colts go 15-2 next season and 16-1 the year after and CB’s record won’t be mediocre but right now it is. I know, but Luck retiring…so tiresome—some of you guys act like every successful GM has been gifted a stud QB. 

[csmopar]

https://www.colts.com/news/rodney-mcleod-signed-safety-philadelphia-eagles-rams-free-agency?fbclid=IwAR0ts80GCghwB7Jcmdw0aJzELzmAnX3teLk9rzr8wcTXj0Coe0tnKuQypV8
 

 

[krunk]

Bro you are super duper late

[jbaron04]

20 minutes ago, krunk said:

Bro you are super duper late

Lol , breaking news Andrew luck is retiring 

[csmopar]

42 minutes ago, krunk said:

Bro you are super duper late

Haha sorry, it popped up as a notification on my Facebook page and said breaking news from the Colts official site, didn’t realize it was who we already had signed until it was too late to delete

[Smoke317]

Ballard is far from perfect but he’s put together rosters more than capable of winning games and contending.  I’m not gonna go through the details again but you can pick out at least 2 games every year that we’ve lost due to coaching error.  Factor in those games and we’d have 3 division titles in the past 5 years and top 1-2 playoff seedlings in those 3 years.  Who knows how those post seasons play out differently with us having home games & better seedlings. 
 

You take these exact same rosters the last 5 years but make Sean Payton the coach and we’d have a couple AFC title game appearances and at least 1 super bowl trip.  These exact same rosters (QB Carousel and all).  Frank and the coaching are the weakest links here and the biggest cause for these teams underachieving. 
 

If we once again lose the division and/or vital playoff seeding, because of poor coaching decisions by Frank, then I’d be in favor of moving on from Reich.  Keep Ballard, get a new head coach (Payton), and draft a young QB for him and Ryan to groom.

 

Ballard is once again building a solid roster.  This was a good signing with Honey Badger probably too expensive.  Gilmore would be a nice pivot.  If not him either, then I expect we’ll target a CB in round 2 (Woolen) and pick up a player or 2 that get cut from other teams.  If we end up with Gilmore, then I think we go receiver in round 2.  Not sure which one though.

[Smonroe]

15 hours ago, csmopar said:

Haha sorry, it popped up as a notification on my Facebook page and said breaking news from the Colts official site, didn’t realize it was who we already had signed until it was too late to delete

 

Technically you were correct.  He wasn't signed until yesterday.