Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Are we YEARS away from contention?


bluephantom87

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 12/9/2022 at 9:51 PM, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Yet deese bums just gave Philly and Dallas a run for their money.

 Contracts are written with outs after 3 years. We have a superior capologist that knows how to plan ahead. We can rebalance some every year.

 So get a grip on it!

Is that a 35 point loss "run for their money" that you're claiming? 

 

Not that it matters, sometimes bad teams run good teams close....or even beat them. It doesn't prove anything.

 

As for the expert capologist that did make me chuckle so thanks for that!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So people are still wah wahing about Ballard. For those who like to point at Ballards "losing" record his first year here he did not have an nfl caliber qb and we finished 4-12, then in 2019, again without an nfl caliber qb we were 7-9, so in retrospect he really has not done bad. And any way why do so many dump 2017 on him when he inherited a dumpster fire from Grigson? Something else I don't understand is if it is so obvious how to build a championship team-you know, pay big money for the "elite" positions that many of you on here ballyhoo about how come not all 32 teams do that??? Let's revisit the Colts of the first decade of the the 2000's. Manning, Glenn, Harrison, Wayne, Freeney, Mathis. Big money thrown at Burris and Poole also. How many Championships? Yes we won a lot of games, but one could argue that was mostly Manning. Would Drew Brees have won 9 consecutive division titles with this team? I don't know but I doubt it, Philip Rivers? Big Ben? Eli(ha,ha), Rogers? I'll stick with Ballard and hopefully Irsay will too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

I don't have to rub anything, what I said was fact lol.

I really didn't understand your post....are you saying Ballard was responsible for Constanzo & Kelly? 

No. Your never ending negativity that has been going on for a long time.  It gets old and stale. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

No. Your never ending negativity that has been going on for a long time.  It gets old and stale. 

What's old and stale is the consistency of ineptness of this organization. 

Just telling it like it is and has been. What you say is negativity is actually stating facts and being right on the money. Its not mine or anybody else's fault here the state of the colts, That falls on ownership, management, and coaching....the very ones you always defend like a good homer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

What's old and stale is the consistency of ineptness of this organization. 

Just telling it like it is and has been. What you say is negativity is actually stating facts and being right on the money. Its not mine or anybody else's fault here the state of the colts, That falls on ownership, management, and coaching....the very ones you always defend like a good homer. 

Your overreacting is worthy of a thumbs up.  :thmup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2022 at 8:54 PM, Timeout said:

Same person to have this poor OL now? Same guy that depends on rookies and doesn't bring in depth? I see what your saying Superman but it goes both ways. These are grown men making a living playing a kids game. Making the bucks! You can't keep blaming coaches and QB when colts have a GM that never has brought in a franchise QB. Ballard just weirdly leaves some positions alone. LT and and his QB choses comes back to bite him.

I don't agree with a lot of what I read on here saying we need a tougher coach. I'm not big on coaches motivating in the NFL. If your players need the coach to yell at them at this level, GM not drafting the right players. That isn't what your saying, I read in other thread. Harbaugh is coming unless he doesn't want the job. IMO Not who I want, but Irsay wants him.. haha

 

Set aside the hyperbole. There's one rookie playing on the OL right now, and it took him a few games but he's actually playing reasonably well right now. The 'doesn't bring in depth' comment is wild talk also. 

 

The rest of your rant seems off topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2022 at 3:56 PM, Solid84 said:

PFF score I believe.

 

We had one leaky blocker in pass pro last season. Up until the last couple of games of the season, the other 4 were fine. The league average sacks allowed was 38.9, we gave up 32; 22 teams gave up more sacks, 19 had a higher sack percentage. And a good amount of the pressure last season was on Wentz.

 

And since everyone wants to rep PFF's rating, they projected the Colts to have the 10th best OL in 2022. That's with Matt Pryor at LT, who they loved in 2021. A lot of posters here liked Pryor at LT also. It's pretty revisionist to look at how bad the OL is right now and act like everyone knew better than Ballard, Reich, and everyone else on the staff over the summer. 

 

The OL hasn't been falling apart, it hasn't been neglected, and it hasn't been patchworked. They should have done something different at LT, but everything else going on with the OL has been shocking. That includes Nelson -- three time first team All Pro -- having a rough 8-10 teams since the end of last season. That includes a pretty dominant run blocking group suddenly struggling to create lanes for the first team All Pro RB. And it includes Ryan Kelly, who has been above average for most of the last five years, dropping off dramatically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Superman said:

 

We had one leaky blocker in pass pro last season. Up until the last couple of games of the season, the other 4 were fine. The league average sacks allowed was 38.9, we gave up 32; 22 teams gave up more sacks, 19 had a higher sack percentage. And a good amount of the pressure last season was on Wentz.

 

And since everyone wants to rep PFF's rating, they projected the Colts to have the 10th best OL in 2022. That's with Matt Pryor at LT, who they loved in 2021. A lot of posters here liked Pryor at LT also. It's pretty revisionist to look at how bad the OL is right now and act like everyone knew better than Ballard, Reich, and everyone else on the staff over the summer. 

 

The OL hasn't been falling apart, it hasn't been neglected, and it hasn't been patchworked. They should have done something different at LT, but everything else going on with the OL has been shocking. That includes Nelson -- three time first team All Pro -- having a rough 8-10 teams since the end of last season. That includes a pretty dominant run blocking group suddenly struggling to create lanes for the first team All Pro RB. And it includes Ryan Kelly, who has been above average for most of the last five years, dropping off dramatically.

I only know the score is what it is.

 

PFF, as far as I know, take out other factors and only evaluate the given position or postion group. If you watched last years Oline and thought we had a top 10 unit I don't know what to tell you. It's DEFINITELY not what I saw.

 

I know there's been a narrative that Wentz held on to the ball for too long and I agree he did in some situations, but his average wasn't bad at all IIRC.

 

And with Pryor (and Pinter at RG at least) we're in this situation because our coaches and FO haven't been good enough at evaluating our talent. We were quite a few who were questioning our decisions regarding the Oline this offseason. AND there should have been alarm bells ringing all over the place for the coaches and Ballard with how bad the Oline played during the preseason. Instead of addressing it, we took our usual wait and see approach and it ended up costing our OC, HC and possibly our GM.

 

This is not hindsight. People here have been saying it since last year and continuously throughout the offseason, preseason and season. Ironically how this situation has been handled completely conflicts with Ballard's and Irsay's win now approach. We've had chances to bring in other players, but haven't. Now it's consequence time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I only know the score is what it is.

 

PFF, as far as I know, take out other factors and only evaluate the given position or postion group. If you watched last years Oline and thought we had a top 10 unit I don't know what to tell you. It's DEFINITELY not what I saw.

 

I know there's been a narrative that Wentz held on to the ball for too long and I agree he did in some situations, but his average wasn't bad at all IIRC.

 

And with Pryor (and Pinter at RG at least) we're in this situation because our coaches and FO haven't been good enough at evaluating our talent. We were quite a few who were questioning our decisions regarding the Oline this offseason. AND there should have been alarm bells ringing all over the place for the coaches and Ballard with how bad the Oline played during the preseason. Instead of addressing it, we took our usual wait and see approach and it ended up costing our OC, HC and possibly our GM.

 

This is not hindsight. People here have been saying it since last year and continuously throughout the offseason, preseason and season. Ironically how this situation has been handled completely conflicts with Ballard's and Irsay's win now approach. We've had chances to bring in other players, but haven't. Now it's consequence time.

 

Last year's OL was top five run blocking, and average pass blocking, mostly because of Fisher. Wentz was indecisive in the pocket, often running into trouble.

 

This idea that the OL has been falling apart for a long time is simple fiction. (Side point: Even great OLs tend to fall apart pretty quickly. The Cowboys went through a similar situation a couple years ago. An injury, a retirement, some FA defections, and the fall off can come before you know it. Which I've been saying all along, while people were complaining about draft picks and second contracts.)

 

And all I'm saying is that it's reasonable to expect Ballard and his staff to be able to fix the OL. We had an average at best OL in 2017, with AC and Kelly, and by the second half of 2018 our OL was one of the best in the league, and it stayed that way for 2-3 years. They've already overseen an OL turnaround. Give them the credit they deserve.

 

Don't know what the Colts have done at any point to make anyone think they are in "win now" mode. I've been pushing back against that narrative all along. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Last year's OL was top five run blocking, and average pass blocking, mostly because of Fisher. Wentz was indecisive in the pocket, often running into trouble.

 

This idea that the OL has been falling apart for a long time is simple fiction. (Side point: Even great OLs tend to fall apart pretty quickly. The Cowboys went through a similar situation a couple years ago. An injury, a retirement, some FA defections, and the fall off can come before you know it. Which I've been saying all along, while people were complaining about draft picks and second contracts.)

 

And all I'm saying is that it's reasonable to expect Ballard and his staff to be able to fix the OL. We had an average at best OL in 2017, with AC and Kelly, and by the second half of 2018 our OL was one of the best in the league, and it stayed that way for 2-3 years. They've already overseen an OL turnaround. Give them the credit they deserve.

 

Don't know what the Colts have done at any point to make anyone think they are in "win now" mode. I've been pushing back against that narrative all along. 

To be fair I do appreciate how they turned around the Oline in 2017 and if it wasn't for the boneheaded Fisher-move, I wouldn't have much of a problem with the '21 performance - injuries was an issue. But, like the with Fisher, Ballard made the call to play Pryor and Pinter. If he deserves credit for turning the Oline around in 2017, he deserves the hits for taking Fisher over Leno (or drafting Darrisaw) and starting Pryor and Pinter.

 

I do think the Colts have been in "win now" mode these past few years. I don't agree that we're at that stage, but Ballard's pressers and the way they've handled the QB situation says they think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

To be fair I do appreciate how they turned around the Oline in 2017 and if it wasn't for the boneheaded Fisher-move, I wouldn't have much of a problem with the '21 performance - injuries was an issue. But, like the with Fisher, Ballard made the call to play Pryor and Pinter. If he deserves credit for turning the Oline around in 2017, he deserves the hits for taking Fisher over Leno (or drafting Darrisaw) and starting Pryor and Pinter.

 

I do think the Colts have been in "win now" mode these past few years. I don't agree that we're at that stage, but Ballard's pressers and the way they've handled the QB situation says they think so.

 

I think there are some issues with coaching and development. Even with Fisher, he struggled in pass pro, but we didn't help him as often as we should have. Same thing early this season with Pryor. I think Reich had his finger directly on the pulse of the offense in 2018, and I think he lost his touch gradually. Rivers shows up in 2020, and suddenly we run screens well, but once he retired that element of our offense was basically dysfunctional. There are some things that Reich really let get out of control, and it all came to a head over the last season and a half.

 

Related to that, wanting our young OL guys to replace Glowinski and Reed isn't unreasonable, that's SOP. (Same thing with the Edge players, btw; Houston and Autry weren't irreplaceable, we had a pipeline of young players that should have been able to fill their shoes.) I think we have a development issue over the last couple of years, and I think it starts with Reich, but Strausser is implicated as well. I don't agree that Ballard made the call to play Pinter and Pryor, I think that's a coaching decision all the way.

 

But that's not absolving Ballard of any responsibility. I said at the time that Leno was a better option, primarily because of Fisher's injury status. As it turns out, Leno got half of what we paid Fisher in 2021, and was twice as good, which is why he earned a fat contract while Fisher sat on the couch until a few days ago. And hearing Ballard question whether the LT prospects in 2021 were good enough, then watching Darrisaw become one of the best LTs in his second season, it's a negative for Ballard as well. That said, I don't agree that signing Fisher was a boneheaded move; he was excellent for several years before his Achilles. I just don't think it was the best option at the time, and it didn't work out well. 

 

I don't know what you've heard from Ballard's pressers that makes you think they've been in "win now" mode. I can see getting that from Irsay, but his comments don't really match the decisions made by the team. And people getting all excited over Matt Ryan was always silly to me; I thought he'd be good for us, but I never felt like he was the difference maker that would make us a contender. (I also wonder whether a lot of the QB decisions were driven more by Reich and Irsay, and whether that's ultimately why Reich is gone and Ballard isn't. Just speculation on my part.)

 

To the point, it's my opinion that fixing the OL isn't all that difficult. It requires attention and some good decisions, but I honestly think that's a routine fix. I'm not ignoring how bad they are right now, I'm just not being a prisoner of the moment. 

 

As it relates to being a contender again, I have the HC decision and the QB decision holding waaaay more importance than any other need this team has to address this offseason. It's not even close. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think there are some issues with coaching and development. Even with Fisher, he struggled in pass pro, but we didn't help him as often as we should have. Same thing early this season with Pryor. I think Reich had his finger directly on the pulse of the offense in 2018, and I think he lost his touch gradually. Rivers shows up in 2020, and suddenly we run screens well, but once he retired that element of our offense was basically dysfunctional. There are some things that Reich really let get out of control, and it all came to a head over the last season and a half.

 

Related to that, wanting our young OL guys to replace Glowinski and Reed isn't unreasonable, that's SOP. (Same thing with the Edge players, btw; Houston and Autry weren't irreplaceable, we had a pipeline of young players that should have been able to fill their shoes.) I think we have a development issue over the last couple of years, and I think it starts with Reich, but Strausser is implicated as well. I don't agree that Ballard made the call to play Pinter and Pryor, I think that's a coaching decision all the way.

 

But that's not absolving Ballard of any responsibility. I said at the time that Leno was a better option, primarily because of Fisher's injury status. As it turns out, Leno got half of what we paid Fisher in 2021, and was twice as good, which is why he earned a fat contract while Fisher sat on the couch until a few days ago. And hearing Ballard question whether the LT prospects in 2021 were good enough, then watching Darrisaw become one of the best LTs in his second season, it's a negative for Ballard as well. That said, I don't agree that signing Fisher was a boneheaded move; he was excellent for several years before his Achilles. I just don't think it was the best option at the time, and it didn't work out well. 

 

I don't know what you've heard from Ballard's pressers that makes you think they've been in "win now" mode. I can see getting that from Irsay, but his comments don't really match the decisions made by the team. And people getting all excited over Matt Ryan was always silly to me; I thought he'd be good for us, but I never felt like he was the difference maker that would make us a contender. (I also wonder whether a lot of the QB decisions were driven more by Reich and Irsay, and whether that's ultimately why Reich is gone and Ballard isn't. Just speculation on my part.)

 

To the point, it's my opinion that fixing the OL isn't all that difficult. It requires attention and some good decisions, but I honestly think that's a routine fix. I'm not ignoring how bad they are right now, I'm just not being a prisoner of the moment. 

 

As it relates to being a contender again, I have the HC decision and the QB decision holding waaaay more importance than any other need this team has to address this offseason. It's not even close. 

I generally agree coaching has been an issue and a big reason we are where we are.

 

On the Pryor and Pinter thing it's definitely Reich's (or Strausser's?) call to play them, and Ballard would likely trust his (their?) judgement. But, he's definitely in the business of evaluating talent and he must have been behind this decision for him not to go looking for an LT or RG.

   The reason I call it a boneheaded move was that we had no capable bridge until Fisher was ready. He'd been injured throughout the entire offseason and preseason. He would of course had to get into game shape and be football ready and then he'd have to establish chemisty with the rest of the Oline. This on top of Leno practically begging to come here and wanting less money.

 

Ballard has said on multiple occasions he felt we could compete. Then add Irsay's comments and that we are building through the draft (mounting contracts eventually) and we're in the ball park of "win now" in my opinion. Also, instead of actually finding our future QB we've been shuffling bandaid. It had to be shared opinion by the team brass.

 

I don't think we are all that close to being a contender right now. Besides the players needed we're looking at a new HC (which could be Saturday), new playbook, new OC and new assistent coaches. If Ballard is gone we could well be looking at a new DC as well. I think we're closer to 2-3 years before we're near playoff level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I generally agree coaching has been an issue and a big reason we are where we are.

 

On the Pryor and Pinter thing it's definitely Reich's (or Strausser's?) call to play them, and Ballard would likely trust his (their?) judgement. But, he's definitely in the business of evaluating talent and he must have been behind this decision for him not to go looking for an LT or RG.

   The reason I call it a boneheaded move was that we had no capable bridge until Fisher was ready. He'd been injured throughout the entire offseason and preseason. He would of course had to get into game shape and be football ready and then he'd have to establish chemisty with the rest of the Oline. This on top of Leno practically begging to come here and wanting less money.

 

Ballard has said on multiple occasions he felt we could compete. Then add Irsay's comments and that we are building through the draft (mounting contracts eventually) and we're in the ball park of "win now" in my opinion. Also, instead of actually finding our future QB we've been shuffling bandaid. It had to be shared opinion by the team brass.

 

I don't think we are all that close to being a contender right now. Besides the players needed we're looking at a new HC (which could be Saturday), new playbook, new OC and new assistent coaches. If Ballard is gone we could well be looking at a new DC as well. I think we're closer to 2-3 years before we're near playoff level.

 

I think we know what the OL strategy was this year. Pryor being terrible at LT ruined the plan. I also don't think anyone predicted Kelly and Nelson would struggle as much as they did.

 

I wasn't a fan of the Fisher strategy, but Davenport and Te'vi being bad and hurt wasn't part of the plan. I'm with you on Leno.

 

Of course the GM and the owner felt we could compete. I don't think Ballard is a "win now" type of GM or decision maker, though. On a side note, that's actually my primary concern with him, whether he'll be more aggressive to compete in a very aggressive player acquisition environment, or if he'll stick to his measured, patient approach. And I don't think he's going to change his way of doing things, which is the biggest reason I'd say I think we need a new GM. 

 

Irsay is always going to be bullish on his team, but his recent comments were likely more about him thinking we were getting something resembling a competent and capable Matt Ryan, and that we could protect him. I don't think anyone in the building thought our roster was on par with KC, Buffalo, Chargers, Bengals, or even the Dolphins. I do think they thought we could compete for the division; I think it's a major failure that we are once again getting son'd by the very average Titans.

 

I don't think it has to take 3 years to get back to the playoffs. Two years, sure, assuming we have a rookie QB next year. Longer than that, and I'd say we're off track. Even with what I perceive to be an average AFC roster, we should be in the hunt for the playoffs this year. Hire a good coach, fix the OL, and have a plan at QB, and we should be pushing hard in 2024. If not, we probably didn't get the HC right.

 

And I've always said, it's one thing to go from bad/underperforming to being a playoff team. What's really difficult is the jump from playoff team to true SB contender. It takes having a lot of things come together on the right schedule, and a lot of players reaching their potential, and a coaching staff that's humming. The Ravens are a good team, MVP level QB, SB winning HC, and they can't get past the divisional round of the playoffs. There's no timeline on making that jump, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think we know what the OL strategy was this year. Pryor being terrible at LT ruined the plan. I also don't think anyone predicted Kelly and Nelson would struggle as much as they did.

 

I wasn't a fan of the Fisher strategy, but Davenport and Te'vi being bad and hurt wasn't part of the plan. I'm with you on Leno.

 

Of course the GM and the owner felt we could compete. I don't think Ballard is a "win now" type of GM or decision maker, though. On a side note, that's actually my primary concern with him, whether he'll be more aggressive to compete in a very aggressive player acquisition environment, or if he'll stick to his measured, patient approach. And I don't think he's going to change his way of doing things, which is the biggest reason I'd say I think we need a new GM. 

 

Irsay is always going to be bullish on his team, but his recent comments were likely more about him thinking we were getting something resembling a competent and capable Matt Ryan, and that we could protect him. I don't think anyone in the building thought our roster was on par with KC, Buffalo, Chargers, Bengals, or even the Dolphins. I do think they thought we could compete for the division; I think it's a major failure that we are once again getting son'd by the very average Titans.

 

I don't think it has to take 3 years to get back to the playoffs. Two years, sure, assuming we have a rookie QB next year. Longer than that, and I'd say we're off track. Even with what I perceive to be an average AFC roster, we should be in the hunt for the playoffs this year. Hire a good coach, fix the OL, and have a plan at QB, and we should be pushing hard in 2024. If not, we probably didn't get the HC right.

 

And I've always said, it's one thing to go from bad/underperforming to being a playoff team. What's really difficult is the jump from playoff team to true SB contender. It takes having a lot of things come together on the right schedule, and a lot of players reaching their potential, and a coaching staff that's humming. The Ravens are a good team, MVP level QB, SB winning HC, and they can't get past the divisional round of the playoffs. There's no timeline on making that jump, though.

 

That's also my MAIN problem with Ballard is his slow patient approach in an aggressive landscape. I feel the Colts are falling further behind the contenders who are not standing pat while the Colts plod along. At this point I honestly believe the Jags will leapfrog the Colts in the south and be the ones challenging the Titans for future division titles. (hope I'm wrong)

 

Can Ballard turn this around after six years on the job and ultimately get this team to SB contention? Maybe... I have my doubts based on the team's non ascending progression thus far. WHOEVER the gm is next season priority one should be dedicated to finding the RIGHT hc/qb combo. Get that wrong and contention for anything will seem like miles away in the loaded afc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bluephantom87 said:

 

That's also my MAIN problem with Ballard is his slow patient approach in an aggressive landscape. I feel the Colts are falling further behind the contenders who are not standing pat while the Colts plod along. At this point I honestly believe the Jags will leapfrog the Colts in the south and be the ones challenging the Titans for future division titles. (hope I'm wrong)

 

Can Ballard turn this around after six years on the job and ultimately get this team to SB contention? Maybe... I have my doubts based on the team's non ascending progression thus far. WHOEVER the gm is next season priority one should be dedicated to finding the RIGHT hc/qb combo. Get that wrong and contention for anything will seem like miles away in the loaded afc.

 

Jags are on their way up. Titans probably on their way down, unless they upgrade at QB and move away from the Henry-centric offense.

 

A Ballard-led turnaround would require a major adjustment in his approach. There's nothing wrong with building through the draft, but unless you're perfect, you are going to have to pay some free agents. And at a certain point, you're going to need to get aggressive in contract structure for a year or two. That's just the present reality. If Ballard won't play in that sandbox, then I don't think he can build a team that will really contend in today's NFL.

 

There's an alternate reality in which Wentz really works out for us in 2021, and Reich's vision for the offense materializes. Then going into this season, we sign a guy like Armstead, trade for a guy like McLaurin, Nelson and Kelly play well, and now our offense looks legit. Maybe we'd be in on the Bradley Chubb trade, or something like it, and we'd have a strong defense. We'd be the best team in the division, we'd be able to hang right there with the Chiefs, Bills, Dolphins, Bengals, etc. And the question would be whether we can finish in the playoffs. (There's another alternate reality in which Luck doesn't retire, and we do this in 2020.)

 

That would leave us with fewer future premium draft picks, and much less cap space in 2023/24. We eventually need to get rid of some good players, and lose some guys like Pittman, JT, Okereke, etc., in free agency. And if we can't finish in the playoffs within a couple years, we basically come up empty handed. I don't see Ballard ever doing this. That said, he wouldn't be the first GM to change his style. The current poster child for this type of team management is Les "* Them Picks" Snead, but he wasn't doing this back in 2017 when he was on the hot seat, beefing with Jeff Fisher. He dramatically changed his roster building approach, and it ultimately paid off for the team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2022 at 11:12 PM, Superman said:

 

Jags are on their way up. Titans probably on their way down, unless they upgrade at QB and move away from the Henry-centric offense.

 

A Ballard-led turnaround would require a major adjustment in his approach. There's nothing wrong with building through the draft, but unless you're perfect, you are going to have to pay some free agents. And at a certain point, you're going to need to get aggressive in contract structure for a year or two. That's just the present reality. If Ballard won't play in that sandbox, then I don't think he can build a team that will really contend in today's NFL.

 

There's an alternate reality in which Wentz really works out for us in 2021, and Reich's vision for the offense materializes. Then going into this season, we sign a guy like Armstead, trade for a guy like McLaurin, Nelson and Kelly play well, and now our offense looks legit. Maybe we'd be in on the Bradley Chubb trade, or something like it, and we'd have a strong defense. We'd be the best team in the division, we'd be able to hang right there with the Chiefs, Bills, Dolphins, Bengals, etc. And the question would be whether we can finish in the playoffs. (There's another alternate reality in which Luck doesn't retire, and we do this in 2020.)

 

That would leave us with fewer future premium draft picks, and much less cap space in 2023/24. We eventually need to get rid of some good players, and lose some guys like Pittman, JT, Okereke, etc., in free agency. And if we can't finish in the playoffs within a couple years, we basically come up empty handed. I don't see Ballard ever doing this. That said, he wouldn't be the first GM to change his style. The current poster child for this type of team management is Les "* Them Picks" Snead, but he wasn't doing this back in 2017 when he was on the hot seat, beefing with Jeff Fisher. He dramatically changed his roster building approach, and it ultimately paid off for the team. 

Good posts in this thread, my man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CanuckColtsFan said:

Love this.

 

 

What we saw today was incredible disfunction. 

 

At the very least we saw how Ballard has BUILT this flawed offense. His philosophy has been exposed over time as a model of yesteryear. His record reflects that also. I still see our receivers / tight ends as big possession types that LACK burst, wiggle and EXPLOSION necessary in today's PASSING league. 

 

The slow methodical run game that usually ends in fgs for this team (unless JT breaks one) is hard to ascend to SB contention unless you have a HISTORICALLY great defense. I believe because we are a RUN first team the LT and in a way the qb position are less of a PRIORITY for Ballard. More like serviceable parts instead of being the MAIN parts to go along with some NEEDED dynamic wrs. The Colts offense is not capable of scoring quickly if necessary because they lack the personnel to do so. See Vikes...

 

I hope to see in the offseason a new gm with a more modern and aggressive approach. I would like to see a young offensive minded hc only if Harbaugh or Payton are not viable options. Gus is ok as dc. (would like to see a more qb pressure at times) Qbs nowadays are hard to stop especially if given time to just sit comfortably in the pocket. I do think Bubba and Reggie are keepers at their positions on staff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare the Vikings team to the Colts

  WRs.....Vikings-Elite   Colts- Below average

   RB........Vikings-Elite   Colts- Hurt

   QB.........Vikings-Elite this YR    Colts-? no solution

   OL.........Vikings- Above average   Colts- Below Average

    TE..........Vikings- ?    Colts- Below average

    Defense..... Vikings- good  Colts-Average at best

Vikings are 11-3. To be a superbowl contender, the colts need alot of change, both coaching and players.  This will take some time.  HC,GM,QB,Owner  effectiveness will determine how long.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

If we draft a rookie quarterback we are.  Probably three years.  And that's if we get lucky and draft a quarterback like Allen who took three years.  The odds are not in our favor.

Peyton’s second year they went 13-3.

Luck’s first year they went 11-5

Burrow’s second year they were in the Super Bowl 

MaHomes second year AFCCG.

 

taking a QB doesn’t mean you have to wait three years to be good and competing for the playoffs or Super Bowls again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Peyton’s second year they went 13-3.

Luck’s first year they went 11-5

Burrow’s second year they were in the Super Bowl 

MaHomes second year AFCCG.

 

taking a QB doesn’t mean you have to wait three years to be good and competing for the playoffs or Super Bowls again.

Not a good comparison really.  Peyton and Luck were the overall top pick.  Maybe Burrows too I can’t remember.  Mahomes is the exception out of the four.  We are not getting the first pick.  I’m sorry that argument doesn’t hold water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yah absolutely years away, this team has unraveled the last few weeks, taken what looked like an already highly flawed team to a basement dweller. 5 years in on Ballards plan and we are getting worse. People who think we are a QB away are delusional. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Not a good comparison really.  Peyton and Luck were the overall top pick.  Maybe Burrows too I can’t remember.  Mahomes is the exception out of the four.  We are not getting the first pick.  I’m sorry that argument doesn’t hold water.

So if they could turn around worse teams that’s not a comparison to trying to turn around a slightly better team?  Also wins wise the Colts won three games the year before they got Peyton and two the year before they got Luck.  This team has four and right now look to be in position to get the second QB off the board.  Which is what RG3 was when he lead Washington to the playoffs in his first year and won rookie of the year.  The NFL is full of highly drafted QBs turning franchises around quickly.  I just gave you small sample.  If you get the pick right they normally do turn the team around fast.  That’s not the big of a difference.  So yeah it doesn’t hold water even if it disproves your point which is what you don’t like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

So if they could turn around worse teams that’s not a comparison to trying to turn around a slightly better team?  Also wins wise the Colts won three games the year before they got Peyton and two the year before they got Luck.  This team has four and right now look to be in position to get the second QB off the board.  Which is what RG3 was when he lead Washington to the playoffs in his first year and won rookie of the year.  The NFL is full of highly drafted QBs turning franchises around quickly.  I just gave you small sample.  If you get the pick right they normally do turn the team around fast.  That’s not the big of a difference.  So yeah it doesn’t hold water even if it disproves your point which is what you don’t like.

It doesn’t hold water.  It really doesn’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll gladly watch a QB we draft go through growing pains since it means there is a chance he could develop into someone who could turn us into a perennial contender eventually. Since Luck retired our GM for reasons I'll never understand has not attempted to do anything necessary to move up in the draft and get one (including trading players). Our roster was never good enough to take the approach they've taken the last three years, and that falls on the GM, who quite frankly is RG 2.0, someone who has accomplished nothing yet keeps acting likes he's the smartest guy in the room. Blame falls on the owner as well, who has this franchise on the precipice of a return to the dark days before Manning. If you don't have a QB in this league you have nothing... I only hope they do the right thing and take a chance with a young QB while attempting to rebuild the team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Round 1 - #15 A. Xavier Worthy, WR, Texas B. Brian Thomas, WR, LSU C. Brock Bowers, TE, Georgia   Round 2 - #46  A. Edgerrin Cooper, LB, Texas A&M B. Marshall Kneeland, DE, Western Michigan C. Jaden Hicks, S, Washington State   Round 3 - #82 A. Troy Franklin, WR, Oregon B. Darius Robinson, DE/DT, Missouri C. Ben Sinnott, TE, Kansas State   Round 4 - #117 A. Jalyx Hunt, DE, Houston Christian B. Mason McCormick, OG, South Dakota State C. Malik Washington, WR, Virginia   Round 5 - #151 A. Beaux Limmer, OC, Arkansas B. Tanor Bortolini, OC, Wisconsin C. Isaac Guerendo, RB, Louisville   Round 6 - #191 A. Decamerion Richardson, CB, Mississippi State B. Qwan'tez Stiggers, CB, Toronto C. Nick Gargiulo, OC, South Carolina   Round 7 - #234 A. Millard Bradford, SS, TCU B. Mark Perry, FS, TCU C. Dalton Tucker, OG, Marshall   BONUS: Will the Colts trade the #15 pick this year?  A: Yes, they will trade back.  
    • Yeah... Richardson needs players who can separate and who can get open deep. IMO "give the inaccurate QB a contested catch receiver with large catch radius" is one of the tropes that hasn't proven to work well. Contested catches have about 50-55% success rate even with the best of contested catch receivers and with relatively accurate QBs... now if you think AR's accuracy is not good, drop that rate even more. The best way to give a relatively inaccurate QB better chance to complete passes is to give him a WR who separates and and who is open so the QB would have more of a margin for error to throw the ball a little behind or ahead or a little higher or lower than ideal. (we are not talking about uncatchable balls here... those will be uncatchable for anyone really). In that regard, one thing I would agree about is - we need WRs who have good hands and have good ball skills.   And this is ignoring that AR has indeed been pretty good with his accuracy on passes at intermediate and long range. His biggest problem coming into the league was the short stuff and he was already showing improvements in that deparment before he got injured.    And Worthy is the WR who created the most separation from anybody in this draft :   
    • Richardson  accuracy  on deep balls is his strength.  Hence why you pair an elite deep threat in worthy.
    • No.   You weren’t.   If you were the least bit sincere, we’d be having these conversations in private.  But you’ve repeatedly ignored my efforts to do that.  Your call.      Then you avoid me until I’m in an uncomfortable conversation with another poster.   You use that awkward moment as an excuse for you to come in with some sincere friendly advice.   The problem is, you’re neither sincere, nor friendly.  And you’ve been doing this for months now.  This is not new.   The pattern is clear and obvious.     And the shame of it all is that even with our different views on Ballard we have enough in common that we should be friendly.  Maybe not friends, but friendly.  You wouldn’t need to address me as “Sir.”    “Good deed going unpunished”.  You flatter yourself.     But your actions speak much louder than your words.   There’s no reason for me to trust you.  And here we are.  A real shame.      
  • Members

    • stitches

      stitches 19,240

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ShuteAt168

      ShuteAt168 956

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Kirie89

      Kirie89 6

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • rob220

      rob220 1

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