The reason Ballard is being kept

[Nickster]

10 hours ago, Superman said:

 

This is such a dishonest approach on your part. You disagreed with me, I asked you for specifics, and you pulled your victim card.

 

If it doesn't matter to you, then that's clearly the difference between my viewpoint and yours. And you could have just said that you don't care how much he gets paid, you just want to keep him. Instead, you accused me of asking him to accept less than he's worth (whatever amount that is), you accused me of dismissing him, and you misrepresented my viewpoint. If you don't want an argument, then don't start one.

Hey seriously Supe.  I asked you earlier what you thought he was worth.  You might have answered, but I don’t remember.  What do you think he’s worth and what do you think he will be offered?

[LJpalmbeacher2]

12 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Keeping him doesn't help us acquire a #1. Trading him might.

 

And we just drafted Pierce, who definitely has the ability to be a #2. He might be capable of more than that. Or maybe we can just write him off, like people love to do...

 

This is a passing league and the more weapons you have the better. 

Imo, the colts are a better team with him than without him going forward.. As long as his future contract isn't ridiculously high, it shouldn't  prohibit the colts to build a strong roster, especially the way other teams manage and manipulate cap space.

[stitches]

16 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I said earlier in this thread that I don't think it's a good idea for the Colts to pay Pittman right now. I'd rather trade him.

 

I'll go a half step further and say that even if we had our HC, QB, OL all settled and our offense was in great shape, I'm not sure Pittman brings the kind of impact on the field that would warrant the kind of contract that I think he's going to be asking for. I think he's a really solid player, he works hard, does the dirty work during games, he's tough, and like the rest of our receivers he's been in a miserable situation this year. I think it would be great to keep him, but not at market value, and not for this team.

It would be such a Ballard move to pay 2 inside DL, 2 interior OL, RT, LB and RB(Taylor) and let Pittman go... it would be just the perfect encapsulation of his team building strategy. I don't think Pittman is a game changer either. But I think I would rather have him than not when we get our next QB. 

 

edit: And for the record, since I saw the argument on the last page - I think I'm good with us giving him 18M a year if he would take that(of course with a good structure that doesn't have much guaranteed past year 2 of the new years. 

[stitches]

15 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Keeping him doesn't help us acquire a #1. Trading him might.

 

And we just drafted Pierce, who definitely has the ability to be a #2. He might be capable of more than that. Or maybe we can just write him off, like people love to do...

Do you have any trust that Ballard will use the 2nd rounder(? is that too optimistic?) he gets for him for a WR? And what's the chance that you get a #1 with a second rounder? What's the chance Ballard drafts a #1 in the second? 

[Superman]

4 hours ago, Nickster said:

Hey seriously Supe.  I asked you earlier what you thought he was worth.  You might have answered, but I don’t remember.  What do you think he’s worth and what do you think he will be offered?

 

I approach these as I would expect the player's agent to approach it. And I think the two best comps for Pittman are Terry McLaurin ($23m) and Diontae Johnson ($18m). Even with a horrible offensive situation in 2022, Pittman still has a chance at 1,000 yards. His yards/catch are way down, but the reasons for that are obvious. And in a down year, he's still neck and neck with Johnson for production (more yards, more TDs, lower average/catch). 

 

I think his market value is easily $20m/year, maybe more. I projected close to $25m/year before the season, but that was at least partly based on the idea that he'd produce at or above his 2021 levels. If he were a FA, someone is definitely giving him $20m, the Jags just gave Christian Kirk $18m last offseason, with far less production, and compared to Diontae Johnson, it kind of looks like a bargain in 2022.

 

What will he be offered? If the Colts were doing business as usual, I would expect an offer of four years, $80m, as a floor. And if this season had gone the way I hoped it would, I'd be able to wrap my mind around that. But to me, we need a reset, and we need to reallocate resources, so I don't think that's a good decision for the Colts at this point in time.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

This is a passing league and the more weapons you have the better. 

Imo, the colts are a better team with him than without him going forward.. As long as his future contract isn't ridiculously high, it shouldn't  prohibit the colts to build a strong roster, especially the way other teams manage and manipulate cap space.

 

I don't disagree with most of this. I'm not even worried that signing Pittman to what I think his market is would hurt the team's ability to build for the future. 

 

My stance is really based on the fact that I think the market for WRs hitting free agency is very inflated right now. This happened in a short period of time, and contracts exploded basically overnight, for players with moderately impressive production. Meanwhile, the WR draft market is flooded with talent, including players who can produce right away. I think there's a market inefficiency at the position. 

 

So we have a moderately productive guy getting #1 level targets but giving #2 level production. He's not a crazy matchup problem (like AJ Brown), he's not a nightmare gadget guy (like Deebo), and he's not even a great technician (like McLaurin). I think it's more efficient to replace Pittman in the draft than it is to pay him his market value on a second contract, and because we don't have important pieces in place right now, it's hard for me to excuse that inefficiency for this version of the Colts right now.

[Superman]

19 minutes ago, stitches said:

Do you have any trust that Ballard will use the 2nd rounder(? is that too optimistic?) he gets for him for a WR? And what's the chance that you get a #1 with a second rounder? What's the chance Ballard drafts a #1 in the second? 

 

50 minutes ago, stitches said:

It would be such a Ballard move to pay 2 inside DL, 2 interior OL, RT, LB and RB(Taylor) and let Pittman go... it would be just the perfect encapsulation of his team building strategy. I don't think Pittman is a game changer either. But I think I would rather have him than not when we get our next QB. 

 

edit: And for the record, since I saw the argument on the last page - I think I'm good with us giving him 18M a year if he would take that(of course with a good structure that doesn't have much guaranteed past year 2 of the new years. 

 

I just think people are basing their opinions on their very worst projection of Chris Ballard, and this is an example. Why would you question whether Ballard would use a second round pick on a WR? He loves second round WRs. And I don't think that's overly optimistic, I think we could definitely get a second for Pittman if we were to trade him.

 

I also think the second round is the sweet spot for WR draft picks right now. In this thread, I'm comparing Pittman to AJ Brown, Deebo, McLaurin, Kirk, Johnson -- all second or third rounders.

 

And I just mentioned in a previous post, I think the normal expectation would be to pay Pittman market value. The reason I'm questioning it is because the short term team building strategy is different than I expected it to be four months ago. At least, I believe it will be.

 

Last thing, I don't think Pittman would sign for $18m/year. I think his market starts at $20m, maybe more.

[stitches]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

I just think people are basing their opinions on their very worst projection of Chris Ballard, and this is an example. Why would you question whether Ballard would use a second round pick on a WR? He loves second round WRs. And I don't think that's overly optimistic, I think we could definitely get a second for Pittman if we were to trade him.

 

I also think the second round is the sweet spot for WR draft picks right now. In this thread, I'm comparing Pittman to AJ Brown, Deebo, McLaurin, Kirk, Johnson -- all second or third rounders.

That's fair. He indeed loves second round WRs. But the second part of my question still stands - what's the chance he actually gets a #1 with that pick? Because he's used 3 so far and IMO Pierce is the closest to being one(purely skill/traits-wise) and that's still a huge question.  

 

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

And I just mentioned in a previous post, I think the normal expectation would be to pay Pittman market value. The reason I'm questioning it is because the short term team building strategy is different than I expected it to be four months ago. At least, I believe it will be.

 

Last thing, I don't think Pittman would sign for $18m/year. I think his market starts at $20m, maybe more.

You know I value WRs more than most. So I value even a non-game changer WR like Pittman relatively high. I think having good/great pass-catchers is incredibly important, especially for young QBs. Herbert had Allen and Mike Williams. Burrow skyrocketted the moment he got Chase. Mahomes had Kelce and Hill from the very beginning. Allen blossomed the moment he got Diggs. Hurts looks awesome all of a sudden after he got Smith and Brown. Hell, even Tua who many completely discounted looks good now that he has 2 game breaking receivers in Hill and Waddle. Is Pittman as good as any of them? No. Not really. But I think I'd rather have him and try to add a no. 1 with a high pick for our next QB than not have him and just hope that Ballard will draft one after he spent 2nd last year on WR and then hit on the WR he takes. 

 

With that said... I think I might be willing to give him 20M a year too. And if he doesn't want it. I will franchise tag him and it will cost about those 20M(currently projected at 19.8M). 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

That's fair. He indeed loves second round WRs. But the second part of my question still stands - what's the chance he actually gets a #1 with that pick? Because he's used 3 so far and IMO Pierce is the closest to being one(purely skill/traits-wise) and that's still a huge question.  

 

You know I value WRs more than most. So I value even a non-game changer WR like Pittman relatively high. I think having good/great pass-catchers is incredibly important, especially for young QBs. Herbert had Allen and Mike Williams. Burrow skyrocketted the moment he got Chase. Mahomes had Kelce and Hill from the very beginning. Allen blossomed the moment he got Diggs. Hurts looks awesome all of a sudden after he got Smith and Brown. Hell, even Tua who many completely discounted looks good now that he has 2 game breaking receivers in Hill and Waddle. Is Pittman as good as any of them? No. Not really. But I think I'd rather have him and try to add a no. 1 with a high pick for our next QB than not have him and just hope that Ballard will draft one after he spent 2nd last year on WR and then hit on the WR he takes. 

 

I think it's worth a case study: At what rate do 1st round WRs become really good NFL players? (And probably need an acceptable definition for "really good" at the WR position, along with an acceptable way to adjust for circumstance. The normal tendency is to use PFF, but I don't value PFF like others seem to.) And how does that compare to 2nd round WRs? What's the respective bust rate? 

 

I think if you looked at the last 10 years, it's probably closer than it would be for most other positions. And I would expect that it gets closer the further along we go. In fact, a lot of the guys you referenced above were drafted outside of the first round.

 

To your point, I have no problem with surrounding a good young QB with good pass catchers. It makes sense for the Bengals to pay Tee Higgins market value and keep their receiving corps in tact around Burrow. We're in a much different situation. We still need pass catchers, I just think we'd be playing right into the market inefficiency when we could try to take advantage of it instead.

 

Adding for clarity: @LJpalmbeacher2

To be clear, I'm mostly defending my argument. I'm not advocating that the Colts get rid of Pittman, I'm not saying he's terrible, overrated, get him out of here, I'm not saying the front office is dumb if they pay him, etc. I'm just saying I don't think the Colts are in good position to get their money's worth from Pittman over the next couple of seasons, and they'd probably do better to reset at WR rather than paying him. Especially because I think the position is flooded with young talent right now. If they decide to pay him, I'm okay with that.

[DougDew]

47 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't disagree with most of this. I'm not even worried that signing Pittman to what I think his market is would hurt the team's ability to build for the future. 

 

My stance is really based on the fact that I think the market for WRs hitting free agency is very inflated right now. This happened in a short period of time, and contracts exploded basically overnight, for players with moderately impressive production. Meanwhile, the WR draft market is flooded with talent, including players who can produce right away. I think there's a market inefficiency at the position. 

 

So we have a moderately productive guy getting #1 level targets but giving #2 level production. He's not a crazy matchup problem (like AJ Brown), he's not a nightmare gadget guy (like Deebo), and he's not even a great technician (like McLaurin). I think it's more efficient to replace Pittman in the draft than it is to pay him his market value on a second contract, and because we don't have important pieces in place right now, it's hard for me to excuse that inefficiency for this version of the Colts right now.

Excellent post!.  Concur with the logic and conclusion, especially how you described Pitt compared to others.  He's also not a particularly physical player, whereas Pierce looks like he has more upside from a physicality standpoint like a #2 might typically have.

[stitches]

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think it's worth a case study: At what rate do 1st round WRs become really good NFL players? (And probably need an acceptable definition for "really good" at the WR position, along with an acceptable way to adjust for circumstance. The normal tendency is to use PFF, but I don't value PFF like others seem to.) And how does that compare to 2nd round WRs? What's the respective bust rate? 

 

I think if you looked at the last 10 years, it's probably closer than it would be for most other positions. And I would expect that it gets closer the further along we go. In fact, a lot of the guys you referenced above were drafted outside of the first round.

 

To your point, I have no problem with surrounding a good young QB with good pass catchers. It makes sense for the Bengals to pay Tee Higgins market value and keep their receiving corps in tact around Burrow. We're in a much different situation. We still need pass catchers, I just think we'd be playing right into the market inefficiency when we could try to take advantage of it instead.

 

Adding for clarity: @LJpalmbeacher2

To be clear, I'm mostly defending my argument. I'm not advocating that the Colts get rid of Pittman, I'm not saying he's terrible, overrated, get him out of here, I'm not saying the front office is dumb if they pay him, etc. I'm just saying I don't think the Colts are in good position to get their money's worth from Pittman over the next couple of seasons, and they'd probably do better to reset at WR rather than paying him. Especially because I think the position is flooded with young talent right now. If they decide to pay him, I'm okay with that.

 

I'm not sure what the numbers will say on the second vs 1st round WRs in recent years, but I kind of feel like the sample is relatively small the more you restrict it based on recency and it becomes somewhat irrelevant the more you expand it further in the past. I guess the question is - do you expect to get better receiver if you pick him in the 1st or the 2nd? My rebuttal to an asnwert like "in the last X years, 2nd rounders have outperformed 1st rounders" is just... I don't believe this is representative AND PREDICTIVE. It's descriptive for the last X years. I don't think it's predictive for the next Y years. I think there is very little evidence to suggest 2nd rounders over the long term will outperform 1st rounders and all the long-term evidence and logic suggests the opposite. Or even - very little evidence that a Ballard picked 2nd rounder will outperform a Ballard picked 1st rounder if we want to narrow it down to the extreme. 

 

I kind of like the argument for resetting the WR position with players closer to our new QB's timeline... but that's only if I'm actually convinced Ballard would pursue that avenue, and I'm simply not... Tee Higgins is actually a good comparison for Pittman. What do you think they will pay Tee Higgins? Do you think they will get similar money? 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Colts really haven’t had much of a chance to draft 1st round WR. We might get our chance in 24 if a rookie plays in 23.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

I'm not sure what the numbers will say on the second vs 1st round WRs in recent years, but I kind of feel like the sample is relatively small the more you restrict it based on recency and it becomes somewhat irrelevant the more you expand it further in the past. I guess the question is - do you expect to get better receiver if you pick him in the 1st or the 2nd? My rebuttle to an asnwert like "in the last X years, 2nd rounders have outperformed 1st rounders" is just... I don't believe this is representative AND PREDICTIVE. It's descriptive for the last X years. I don't think it's predictive for the next Y years. I think there is very little evidence to suggest 2nd rounders over the long term will outperform 1st rounders and all the long-term evidence and logic suggests the opposite. Or even - very little evidence that a Ballard picked 2nd rounder will outperform a Ballard picked 1st rounder if we want to narrow it down to the extreme. 

 

I kind of like the argument for resetting the WR position with players closer to our new QB's timeline... but that's only if I'm actually convinced Ballard would pursue that avenue, and I'm simply not... Tee Higgins is actually a good comparison for Pittman. What do you think they will pay Tee Higgins? Do you think they will get similar money? 

 

The sample for WRs isn't that small. A lot of WRs get drafted every year, many of them in the first two rounds. (What's small is the sample for Ballard first rounders; he's only made three picks, all at different positions. One is no longer with the team, one has been All Pro 4 times, and the other is just finishing his second season. There's really nothing to evaluate.)

 

And I think 'long term evidence' should be evaluated for relevance, since trends have appeared and gone away at times. And 'logic' should be evaluated for soundness, because if the results run contrary to prevailing logic, then maybe the logic isn't sound?

 

I also think you're not acknowledging or maybe discounting what I see as a recent trend, specifically at WR. For a variety of reasons, long story short, WR prospects are more pro ready than they were even five years ago. So to answer the bolded, while I would expect to get a better receiver in the first, I don't think there's going to be a dramatic difference between the 1st-3rd drafted receiver and the 5-7th drafted receiver, and I think that difference will continue to get smaller as the years go on. I think that's where the game has shifted, and I expect to see that shift continue.

 

Regarding whether Ballard would pursue that avenue, I don't think he'd draft a WR in the second this year. I think what I might do is sign a veteran or trade for a guy on a lower contract, and be looking to 2024 to draft another WR, assuming we get our promising QB in 2023. That's the Burrow-Chase process.

 

I'd put Tee Higgins on a higher tier than Pittman right now, he's shown the athleticism and big time play making ability that Pittman has not. Because of that, I'd be more excited about the Colts paying Higgins than I am about paying Pittman. Higgins should be in that $23-25m range, I think.

[stitches]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The sample for WRs isn't that small. A lot of WRs get drafted every year, many of them in the first two rounds. (What's small is the sample for Ballard first rounders; he's only made three picks, all at different positions. One is no longer with the team, one has been All Pro 4 times, and the other is just finishing his second season. There's really nothing to evaluate.)

 

And I think 'long term evidence' should be evaluated for relevance, since trends have appeared and gone away at times. And 'logic' should be evaluated for soundness, because if the results run contrary to prevailing logic, then maybe the logic isn't sound?

 

I also think you're not acknowledging or maybe discounting what I see as a recent trend, specifically at WR. For a variety of reasons, long story short, WR prospects are more pro ready than they were even five years ago. So to answer the bolded, while I would expect to get a better receiver in the first, I don't think there's going to be a dramatic difference between the 1st-3rd drafted receiver and the 5-7th drafted receiver, and I think that difference will continue to get smaller as the years go on. I think that's where the game has shifted, and I expect to see that shift continue.

That's a more nuanced conversation - is the difference in draft capital worth the difference in expected production. You might be right here, but if the goal is getting a #1... it's possible the answer is actually "yes", even if the pure numbers don't show it. 

 

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

Regarding whether Ballard would pursue that avenue, I don't think he'd draft a WR in the second this year. I think what I might do is sign a veteran or trade for a guy on a lower contract, and be looking to 2024 to draft another WR, assuming we get our promising QB in 2023. That's the Burrow-Chase process.

 

I'd put Tee Higgins on a higher tier than Pittman right now, he's shown the athleticism and big time play making ability that Pittman has not. Because of that, I'd be more excited about the Colts paying Higgins than I am about paying Pittman. Higgins should be in that $23-25m range, I think.

 

Do you think Tee Higgins can be a #1? What if the Bengals decide he's overqualified to be their no.2 at 25M, but see Pittman as a good option for say... 20M? Would you make that trade straight up and give Higgins the 25M? 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

That's a more nuanced conversation - is the difference in draft capital worth the difference in expected production. You might be right here, but if the goal is getting a #1... it's possible the answer is actually "yes", even if the pure numbers don't show it. 

 

It's definitely a more involved discussion, but all of that influencing my thinking on this topic. It's all about how I view the WR market right now.

 

Quote

Do you think Tee Higgins can be a #1? What if the Bengals decide he's overqualified to be their no.2 at 25M, but see Pittman as a good option for say... 20M? Would you make that trade straight up and give Higgins the 25M? 

 

It's a really good question, and it's making me re-evaluate my previous comment about Pittman vs Higgins. I don't think I'd like to play in those waters for a WR unless I think he's a real #1 level guy. Short of that, I think you can get more bang for your buck in the draft. I think Higgins is closer to #1 than Pittman, but not quite. And I'd still rather reset the position based on where the team is.

[throwing BBZ]

22 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I don't disagree with most of this. I'm not even worried that signing Pittman to what I think his market is would hurt the team's ability to build for the future. 

 

My stance is really based on the fact that I think the market for WRs hitting free agency is very inflated right now. This happened in a short period of time, and contracts exploded basically overnight, for players with moderately impressive production. Meanwhile, the WR draft market is flooded with talent, including players who can produce right away. I think there's a market inefficiency at the position. 

 

So we have a moderately productive guy getting #1 level targets but giving #2 level production. He's not a crazy matchup problem (like AJ Brown), he's not a nightmare gadget guy (like Deebo), and he's not even a great technician (like McLaurin). I think it's more efficient to replace Pittman in the draft than it is to pay him his market value on a second contract, and because we don't have important pieces in place right now, it's hard for me to excuse that inefficiency for this version of the Colts right now.

 

 Superb!  

  And "this version" has many important holes and does need a reset that will take a couple years min. Ballards theories and his underlings abilities to find the players for it to make us contenders has not worked.

 IMO, Ballard can't see the forest for the trees, he is stuck in his ideas, and isn't the guy to clean up our roster. Make him a VP and move forward. 

[DougDew]

22 hours ago, Superman said:

I guess the question is - do you expect to get better receiver if you pick him in the 1st or the 2nd? My rebuttle to an asnwert like "in the last X years, 2nd rounders have outperformed 1st rounders" is just... I don't believe this is representative AND PREDICTIVE. It's descriptive for the last X years. I don't think it's predictive for the next Y years. I think there is very little evidence to suggest 2nd rounders over the long term will outperform 1st rounders and all the long-term evidence and logic suggests the opposite. Or even - very little evidence that a Ballard picked 2nd rounder will outperform a Ballard picked 1st rounder if we want to narrow it down to the extreme. 

Apologies for getting into you and Supe's convo, but the concept you are questioning is in fact logic applied in a backwards direction.    Its logical, but you're starting at the finish line, which is measuring success at the NFL level, and you're working backwards to the beginning, which is the predraft analysis process that ranked them by round to begin with.  IMO, looking at it this way does not help us know where to pick a WR in the future.

 

Like you said:   It's descriptive for the last X years. I don't think it's predictive for the next Y years.

 

If 1st round and 2nd round WRs have performed equally well across the NFL, then that speaks to flaws in the predraft analysis process that should not have had them ranked differently.  Understanding the flaws and the fixing them would create a better predraft process, which should then result in success rate aligning with round drafted. 

 

I don't think its wise to say that...for example...if we have 5 WRs on our board  ranked from 15 to 45, it doesn't matter that we take WR 45 over WR 15, because history shows that WRs picked in the second round have the same level of success as Wrs picked in the first round.   Or even a more narrow grouping like 35 over 25.  You'd be using after-the-fact statistical history over the entire NFL  to sort of moot your own predraft analysis that ranked them as individual players to begin with. 

 

I don't think anybody is suggesting doing that, but when you look at these stats and try to use them as a predictor of future success by round and seeing that it hasn't historically mattered, that's really what you'd be doing.   

  

[Moosejawcolt]

23 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I don't disagree with most of this. I'm not even worried that signing Pittman to what I think his market is would hurt the team's ability to build for the future. 

 

My stance is really based on the fact that I think the market for WRs hitting free agency is very inflated right now. This happened in a short period of time, and contracts exploded basically overnight, for players with moderately impressive production. Meanwhile, the WR draft market is flooded with talent, including players who can produce right away. I think there's a market inefficiency at the position. 

 

So we have a moderately productive guy getting #1 level targets but giving #2 level production. He's not a crazy matchup problem (like AJ Brown), he's not a nightmare gadget guy (like Deebo), and he's not even a great technician (like McLaurin). I think it's more efficient to replace Pittman in the draft than it is to pay him his market value on a second contract, and because we don't have important pieces in place right now, it's hard for me to excuse that inefficiency for this version of the Colts right now.

I totally agree with u r saying and said it at the beginning and thru out the season. My only fear is  that if Ballard is our GM, he will sign both Taylor and Pittman before he is eventually shown the Door at the end of 2023.

[JColts72]

Economics 

[crazycolt1]

14 hours ago, JColts72 said:

Economics 

That probably plays a part but maybe Irsay is giving Ballard a chance?