Colts Front Office Grades by Pro Football Network

[sb41champs]

https://coltswire.usatoday.com/2022/06/25/indianapolis-colts-front-office-ranking-pro-football-network/

 

I believe strongly in Chris Ballard and the way he is building our team to be consistent contenders.

[smittywerb]

Figured the one knock against us is that we don’t grab big targets and/or spend enough in free agency.  But to be one spot out of the top 10 with that knock against you is honestly very impressive.

[NewColtsFan]

I had no problem — none — about the first seven teams.    But the next 3?   The Chargers, Bengals, and the Browns are, at best, debatable.    
 

Chargers have done what?   Bengals have had one very good year.   One.    And the Browns are a complete mess due entirely to their front office.    There may be an argument for these teams, but I don’t find it very strong.   I’d have the Colts in the top 10.   I’m not offended that we’re not, but I’m not convinced 8, 9 and 10 are better than we are. 

[EastStreet]

12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I had no problem — none — about the first seven teams.    But the next 3?   The Chargers, Bengals, and the Browns are, at best, debatable.    
 

Chargers have done what?   Bengals have had one very good year.   One.    And the Browns are a complete mess due entirely to their front office.    There may be an argument for these teams, but I don’t find it very strong.   I’d have the Colts in the top 10.   I’m not offended that we’re not, but I’m not convinced 8, 9 and 10 are better than we are. 

 

Both LAC and Cinci are top 5 in cap health ranks. Both are top 10 in preseason power rankings. Both have great young QBs of the future. And both have drafted well and improved their roster for the most part. So no argument from me there.

 

Browns are a little shaky for me. They do have a very good roster though. And are top 10 in power rankings. The Watson move might turn out to be brilliant, but could also implode. Can't argue much. 

[Boondoggle]

There aren't ten GMs that I would hire over Ballard.

 

For me the GM eval starts with that head coach hire because if you hire a strong coach you're making your own job easier but not all the GMs seem to realize that.  His first shot he went after the big fish in McDaniels.  I know McDaniels is reviled round these parts, but the chance that you can hit on an elite HC is worth the hire risk.  Unfortunately it didn't work out.  Frank was regardless a strong hire, and as long as Irsay has this guy at GM he's going to have a team that competes and is in playoff contention.

 

Question is whether Frank can handle the whole show and keep an entire team on track.  But right now I'm feeling pretty good about this team.  They have a real chance to make some noise in the playoffs.

[Solid84]

I think it's about right. You could argue higher or lower but ultimately I think he's somewhere in the 10-13 range. Browns are (way) too high in this list, in my opinion, but then I feel John Lynch (49'ers) and Mickey Loomis (Saints) are way too low. I also like what George Paton (Broncos) has done so far.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Les Snead should be #1. The way he and his team manipulates the cap. I have never seen anything like it since watching football + it got them a SB. I have us at #10 = top 10. Ballard along with Irsay belong in the top 10, it should not even be a debate. I like our Front office better than the Browns. Browns are a mess right now. Watson is about to be suspended for the year and they did Baker dirty. How they are ranked above us is puzzling. I would have the 49ers and Lynch higher than them.

[RollerColt]

14 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I had no problem — none — about the first seven teams.    But the next 3?   The Chargers, Bengals, and the Browns are, at best, debatable.    
 

Chargers have done what?   Bengals have had one very good year.   One.    And the Browns are a complete mess due entirely to their front office.    There may be an argument for these teams, but I don’t find it very strong.   I’d have the Colts in the top 10.   I’m not offended that we’re not, but I’m not convinced 8, 9 and 10 are better than we are. 

Yeah, the Browns ahead of us is laughable. But again a lot of people seem to see them getting Watson as a genius move. I’m not convinced. 

[Myles]

I'm not in favor of ranking a front office high because the team sucked bad enough to draft a top QB.  

[shasta519]

18 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I had no problem — none — about the first seven teams.    But the next 3?   The Chargers, Bengals, and the Browns are, at best, debatable.    
 

Chargers have done what?   Bengals have had one very good year.   One.    And the Browns are a complete mess due entirely to their front office.    There may be an argument for these teams, but I don’t find it very strong.   I’d have the Colts in the top 10.   I’m not offended that we’re not, but I’m not convinced 8, 9 and 10 are better than we are. 

Well LAC and CIN found top 5-10 QBs who should be around for the next 10+ years. Both are primed to make a SB run and CIN just went to the SB.

 

CLE is probably on here because people like Berry and they have built a very good roster (despite what people think about the Watson move). But I think #10 is a bit high.

 

Also think they are low on NO and especially SF.

 

TEN prob belongs top 10 with the success they have had with JRob. He does have some notable 1st round whiffs, but they have a 59-38 record under him. 

[shasta519]

15 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'm not in favor of ranking a front office high because the team sucked bad enough to draft a top QB.  

Who does that apply to though? CIN? Hard to not put a team that just played in the SB in the top 10.

 

LAC is too high, but you get major points for going from a HOF QB to a top 10 QB on a rookie deal.

[AwesomeAustin]

Saw that article and initially thought it was low.  Its a results driven league so after some time to let it digest i think its fair +/- a couple spots.  I truly believe we are capable of being a top 8 team in this league.  That is making it past the wildcard round in the playoffs.  After that it is all about matchups, health and who can make the 4-5 plays a game when the team needs it. Our roster is about as good as anyone else and capable of winning it all.  Excluding injuries, it will be up to the coaches and players to make it happen. Thats a good indicator our front office has done a good job.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 hours ago, Myles said:

I'm not in favor of ranking a front office high because the team sucked bad enough to draft a top QB.  

I gave you a LIKE because I sort of agree. That is like saying Grigson was great because he drafted Andrew Luck. - 'looky Marge, all I have to do is draft Andrew Luck and I will be GM of the year',  . Hell you, I, and my mom would know to take Andrew Luck.

[Myles]

11 hours ago, shasta519 said:

Who does that apply to though? CIN? Hard to not put a team that just played in the SB in the top 10.

 

 

Yeah, but the Brown's have been the front office for a long time and Cincy has stunk it up most of those years.   They finally hit on a QB because they had a high draft choice because the sucked so much.  

[aReggie7]

I think the ranking I would challenge most is Mickey Loomis at 15. I think he is in the top 10 and probably top 5. He has been there as GM or VP since 2002 so he was instrumental in building that team post Katrina along with hiring Sean Payton. There have been some bumps in his 20 year tenure but I think he is well established as one of the best GMs in the NFL.

 

Jason Licht is too high, IMO. He has been the GM since 2014. The article makes the case that he made other good moves besides Tom Brady. That is true but pretty much any GM makes some good moves over that much time. I think Tom Brady is really the difference in him being on that list at all and being fired at some point over the last couple of years. 

 

I'm also not sure about Gutekunst and Veach (can probably make a stronger argument for Gutekunst) being ranked where they are. Their predecessors did plenty of good work before to set them up. The players they were able to inherit, particularly at QB, gave them a head start. 

 

I get the arguments in favor of Licht, Gutekunst and Veach but I just wouldn't have them rated that high.

 

I think Jon Robinson is a top 10 GM. 

 

 

[GoColts8818]

I mean who cares?  Personally I think the more effective way to judge front offices is by what your team does on the field.  I am not really interested in how they are ranked.

[AwesomeAustin]

8 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

I mean who cares?  Personally I think the more effective way to judge front offices is by what your team does on the field.  I am not really interested in how they are ranked.

Yet here you are commenting in a thread about FO rankings. Lol. 
 

Ultimately, most are judged by how their teams play on the field. I would assume if the Colts have a great year they will move up and move down if its another bad year. 

[Boondoggle]

30 minutes ago, aReggie7 said:

I think the ranking I would challenge most is Mickey Loomis at 15. I think he is in the top 10 and probably top 5.

I agree with this.  He did a good job of keeping the OC around while the DC moved into the HC role.  That one move is what makes them a top darkhorse team this year.  If Winston plays well people will find out how good that defense is.  For losing a guy of Payton's status he managed it well this offseason.

 

Of course this season will say a lot about all that.  Put the roster together then it has to go win on the field but I figure the Saints will be a "surprise" team.

[Fluke_33]

I’m happy with Ballard but if I was ranking them objectively I wouldn’t put anyone in the top ten who missed the playoffs the prior season.  

[DougDew]

9 hours ago, Myles said:

Yeah, but the Brown's have been the front office for a long time and Cincy has stunk it up most of those years.   They finally hit on a QB because they had a high draft choice because the sucked so much.  

CIN hit on a lot of other picks and just fixed their main problem, the interior Oline.  And the HC seems to be ascending.

[DougDew]

I don't see the Browns being ahead of the Colts but I don't see TEN, NO, or SF being lower either. 

[GoColts8818]

8 hours ago, AwesomeAustin said:

Yet here you are commenting in a thread about FO rankings. Lol. 
 

Ultimately, most are judged by how their teams play on the field. I would assume if the Colts have a great year they will move up and move down if its another bad year. 

Because I commented on a thread on a forum doesn’t mean I care about the rankings.  For your information I didn’t even look to see where they are ranked.  If you care good for you.  I just simply gave my opinion about rankings of front offices.

[IrsaysArmy]

How do you rank Ballard outside of the top 10 after what he just did this off-season. It’s honesty laughable.

1. Yannick for Rock

2. Gilmore.

3. Carson/Ryan Swap

4. Day 2 draft.

5. etc.

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 minutes ago, IrsaysArmy said:

How do you rank Ballard outside of the top 10 after what he just did this off-season. It’s honesty laughable.

1. Yannick for Rock

2. Gilmore.

3. Carson/Ryan Swap

4. Day 2 draft.

5. etc.

I agree we are 10th at worse after looking at the list. Browns ahead of us had me  

[Myles]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

CIN hit on a lot of other picks and just fixed their main problem, the interior Oline.  And the HC seems to be ascending.

I'm just saying that the front office has been horrible in most past years and d1 successful season means they are now great?

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

I'm just saying that the front office has been horrible in most past years and d1 successful season means they are now great?

I look at it as CINcy's past year of success being the result of good decisions being made the past 5 years.  I'd put LAC in that bucket too.  And NO has done well despite the challenges of their two star players , Brees and Kamara. getting old, as well as losing Payton.

 

The Browns and the Colts have kinda been at the same level for years.  

[Solid84]

2 hours ago, IrsaysArmy said:

How do you rank Ballard outside of the top 10 after what he just did this off-season. It’s honesty laughable.

1. Yannick for Rock

2. Gilmore.

3. Carson/Ryan Swap

4. Day 2 draft.

5. etc.

Well, we don’t know the results of those moves yet even if they look very promising.
 

We do, however, know he has us at 9.25-7 W-L per season over the last four seasons - fringe playoff team… after they expanded the post season to include three wildcard teams. Which is above average, but does not give him a top 10 spot in my book. 
 

“bUt LuCk ReTiReD!!!”… in 2018.. get over it. Ballard’s had plenty of opportunities to get our guy of the future. Fingers crossed we have Matty Ice for a handfull of years, but it’s taken him long enough…

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Well, we don’t know the results of those moves yet even if they look very promising.
 

We do, however, know he has us at 9.25-7 W-L per season over the last four seasons - fringe playoff team… after they expanded the post season to include three wildcard teams. Which is above average, but does not give him a top 10 spot in my book. 
 

“bUt LuCk ReTiReD!!!”… in 2018.. get over it. Ballard’s had plenty of opportunities to get our guy of the future. Fingers crossed we have Matty Ice for a handfull of years, but it’s taken him long enough…

This is the best roster we have had since 2018. So not sure what the list is based on? Going by our off season and the last 2 years of winning 11 and 9 games we should be top 10. The Iceman is coming and Tennessee fans better be aware of the freeze  Cheesy but great  

[shasta519]

2 hours ago, IrsaysArmy said:

How do you rank Ballard outside of the top 10 after what he just did this off-season. It’s honesty laughable.

1. Yannick for Rock

2. Gilmore.

3. Carson/Ryan Swap

4. Day 2 draft.

5. etc.

 

If those moves work out, and the Colts have a great season, I would assume they easily move into the top 10, especially if they go into next offseason as a SB contender.

 

But we haven't seen it play out yet. 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

If those moves work out, and the Colts have a great season, I would assume they easily move into the top 10, especially if they go into next offseason as a SB contender.

 

But we haven't seen it play out yet. 

 

I just don't have the Browns ahead of us. What have they done. Watson?? 'hey Marge give me a massage so I can get suspended for a whole year but I will still make 45 Mill while my team sucks'  . 

[Nesjan3]

Yea honestly I'm a fan of Ballard's but take the blue shades off and look at the results. We haven't exactly been world beaters. Actually haven't even won the weakest division in the league.

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

Yea honestly I'm a fan of Ballard's but take the blue shades off and look at the results. We haven't exactly been world beaters. Actually haven't even won the weakest division in the league.

The weakest division the last 2 years has been the NFC East. Having said that if we don't win the division this year some heads may roll.

[NewColtsFan]

17 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

Yea honestly I'm a fan of Ballard's but take the blue shades off and look at the results. We haven't exactly been world beaters. Actually haven't even won the weakest division in the league.

Gee…….    I wonder why?

 

Hmmmm?!?      What could it be?

 

What possible reason have we for not winning the division?

 

Gee….    It’s soooo hard!?!    
 

I know….  if I gave you a dollar, I might at least ask for a quarter back!     

[2006Coltsbestever]

38 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

Yea honestly I'm a fan of Ballard's but take the blue shades off and look at the results. We haven't exactly been world beaters. Actually haven't even won the weakest division in the league.

Yeah had we Andrew Luck as QB we would've won the division last year if not the SB. Matt Ryan is here now, lets see how this plays out.

[Myles]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I look at it as CINcy's past year of success being the result of good decisions being made the past 5 years.  

 

 

the Bengals record the past 6 years with the same front office:

2016 - 6-9-1

2017 - 7-9

2018 - 6-10

2019 - 2-14

2020 - 4-11-1

2021 - 10-7

 

And that qualifies for a top 10 spot?    I just do not think so.  The team was awful for 5 of 6 years.   It's no wonder they were able to draft good players.  

[joecolts]

I like Ballard.  I believe he’s a very good GM and I support his approach to building a roster and culture.  With that said, I believe he is graded in about the right spot.  Until you show that success in the form of wins and continued success, you are nothing more than talented.  We’ll see if he elevates to the next rung.  

[Solid84]

39 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Gee…….    I wonder why?

 

Hmmmm?!?      What could it be?

 

What possible reason have we for not winning the division?

 

Gee….    It’s soooo hard!?!    
 

I know….  if I gave you a dollar, I might at least ask for a quarter back!     

And who's that on?

 

I know Luck retiring was a major blow to the Colts, but Ballard has had years to find a stable replacement. Not getting that done is squarely on him. This is a major reason why he has no place in the top 10.

[Four2itus]

I believe rankings should be by the results of last season, not the upcoming season. That is not a ranking, it's a wild guess. 

 

And the results should include considerations of lost impact players, coaching/front office/scheme changes, divisional strength, and rotating division matchups/bye week/travel disadvantages. 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

the Bengals record the past 6 years with the same front office:

2016 - 6-9-1

2017 - 7-9

2018 - 6-10

2019 - 2-14

2020 - 4-11-1

2021 - 10-7

 

And that qualifies for a top 10 spot?    I just do not think so.  The team was awful for 5 of 6 years.   It's no wonder they were able to draft good players.  

I didn't use records for my opinion.  I said I thought that they have made good decisions during those periods.  They are coming to fruition. 

[Myles]

25 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I didn't use records for my opinion.  I said I thought that they have made good decisions during those periods.  They are coming to fruition. 

I wouldn't ever consider going 25-53-2 for 5 years before a winning record (10-7) is good use of 5 years.  Sure, they took advantage of their high draft positions, but they sucked for 5 years to do it.