Ballard and Irsay Could Learn A Lot from Super Bowl GM's!

[ClaytonColt]

23 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

I actually find it aggressive. He's taking a risk by missing out on a player at his current spot in order to get more picks. 

It is a risk, you're quite correct. But taking a risk and being aggressive aren't the same thing.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

That's an interesting one indeed. There's a reason I talked mainly about the Eagles and Roseman earlier in this thread... It's because the Chiefs have actually been somewhat passive, but also keep in mind that they had incentive to keep the status quo since they've been one of the best teams for the last 3-4 years. IMO they are benefiting from having possibly the best QB in the league in Mahomes - they can afford to chase the status quo, because they already have the ultimate ceiling-raiser. 

 

They traded Hill, which I thought was an interesting decision, but they also made some aggressive moves - (some I agree with, and some I don't) - example - they gave up a 1st for Orlando Brown... they also gave a huge contract to Joe Thuney. After they traded Hill, they signed MVS who cannot be compared with hill but gives them a deep thread in the same vein as Hill. They got Juju Smith Schuster, they drafted Skyy Moore in the second and then gave up another high pick for Toney... So again... IMO they tried to just replace what they lost in Hill by committe of 3-4 different receivers. 

 

But again.... if you take a inventory of where they are spending a lot of resources - OT, weapons, pass-rush(Karlaftis 1st), CB... now... they got lucky with hitting on Sneed in the 4th, but then followed it with a 1st round pick on Trent McDuffie. 

 

So to some degree they are not that different from the strategy I want us to follow - hit on QB, then invest on weapons, OT, pass-rushers and CBs... 

 

Agreed on the Chiefs objectives. I don't think what they did at WR is aggressive, I think those are all very measured decsions. Toney was a comp 3rd and a 6th. MVS got three years, $30m, which was kind of chump change in last year's WR market. What they did was move off of Hill and reinvested in the OL, which is kind of a zag in a year where a lot of teams are spending big money on WRs.

 

I do agree that they took risks, moving Hill is a big deal. They weren't content to sit on what they had, they reallocated resources by diluting a strength and bolstering a weakness, but it all centered around Mahomes being able to adjust to new complementary pieces, while hopefully being better protected behind an improved OL.

[stitches]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Agreed on the Chiefs objectives. I don't think what they did at WR is aggressive, I think those are all very measured decsions. Toney was a comp 3rd and a 6th. MVS got three years, $30m, which was kind of chump change in last year's WR market. What they did was move off of Hill and reinvested in the OL, which is kind of a zag in a year where a lot of teams are spending big money on WRs.

 

Agree, I wouldn't call those WR moves aggressive... but they didn't sit still when losing Hill either. They at least tried to secure some base level of performance at the position. 

 

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

I do agree that they took risks, moving Hill is a big deal. They weren't content to sit on what they had, they reallocated resources by diluting a strength and bolstering a weakness, but it all centered around Mahomes being able to adjust to new complementary pieces, while hopefully being better protected behind an improved OL.

Yep... ultimately a franchise QB... an MVP QB gives you a lot of leeway to maneuver resources in different areas of the team.

[Moosejawcolt]

On 2/8/2023 at 8:44 AM, Jared Cisneros said:

Agree 100%. Ballard is too timid, and he has gotten what he deserved as a GM record-wise because of it. Losing record, no division wins, 1 playoff win in 6 years. You have to risk it to get the biscuit! Been a believer in that my entire life. 

i wouldn't say that Ballard is too timid. I just think that his drafts have not provided elite and/or very good players at the elite skill positions. People say he has also failed as he has built the team from the inside out. In other words spending his most expensive assets on O and D line. I dont think this is really a wrong way to build the team. The problem is that neither of those groupings can be what is called elite and that is where the problem lies,. If we had both elite O line and D lines, i think we could live with good players at the skill positions. Our corners, ws, tes and rbs would look elite with dominant lines

[Nickster]

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Nick….  I know you opposed the signings when they happened, in real time.   But the thing is,  you opposed them because you oppose all things that Ballard does and believes in.  
 

You opposed Nelson and Leonard when they were putting up Hall of Fame performances.  Before there was any decline.    I don’t think that’s a good look for you. 
 

One of the things I think you need to deal with is the importance he places on team culture.   Indianapolis is not a destination location for many players.  So the only way to get them is to win a bidding war.  And neither CB or Irsay want any part of that. 

Ballard is telling his locker room that if they work hard, practice hard and play hard he will reward them.  That’s an important message for him to sell.  He’s not looking to squeeze top players.   It’s counter to the culture he believes Indy needs to sell. 
 

You’d be happiest if Ballard was fired.   And someday you may get your wish.   I was writing most of the season that I think CB was no better than 50/50 to stay.   At this point, I think it’s highly doubtful he finishes the balance of his contract which still has 4-years to go.   And if it turns out he does, that means he’s done a good job.  And if not, you’ll have gotten your wish.  
 

 

 

IMO this is an extremely weak response to the post it claims to respond to.  And your first paragraph is beyond the pale of fallacy but go for it dude. 

 

This is what you do.  You claim to respond to what appears to me to be a fairly emotionless, reasonable post with thinly veiled ad homenim weak sauce resposnse

 

Oh yeah but you were a journalist.  

[Nickster]

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think we disagree again.   Bradley was picked because what he runs is closest to what Flus runs.   So there wasn’t as much of a learning curve.  The players got up to speed quickly.   The transition was relatively smooth. 

 

[Nickster]

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

This I have no view on.   I’m not a big fan of the Ballard/Flus defense.   I tolerate it.  I’m ok with the Bradley defense but would much prefer he blitz more.  In todays NFL, I think blitzing is important.   Bradley is typically near the bottom in this category. 
Also, while I’d like Yannick back, I would not want him as the 3-down RDE.  His D against the run is beyond terrible.  So Yannick should be situational.   
 

Im very curious as to the personnel decisions the team makes this off-season. I hope I’m not disappointed too often. 

You just told me the two defenses were really close.

 

[stitches]

 

[Nickster]

8 hours ago, chad72 said:

Yep. They put their money on the premium positions and WR, it seems like they served a blueprint for the league to show that you can substitute a stud WR with 2 good WRs with good protection from OL and a good DL. So I am fine with our Pittman, Pierce, Campbell, Jelani Woods route, 100%

Yeah but they had Kelce.  Woods is not Kelce who is as hard to guard as any WR in the game.  Without Kelce they re-sign Hill in all likelihood.  He’s an alpha alpha plus plus pass catcher.  All the best teams have at least one.

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, Nickster said:

 

IMO this is an extremely weak response to the post it claims to respond to.  And your first paragraph is beyond the pale of fallacy but go for it dude. 

 

This is what you do.  You claim to respond to what appears to me to be a fairly emotionless, reasonable post with thinly veiled ad homenim weak sauce resposnse

 

Oh yeah but you were a journalist.  

For the life of me, I have no idea what you’re complaining about.  There are four paragraphs in my post and I think only one of them is even slightly critical of you.  Otherwise I made comments explaining my views. 
 

I assure you, there were other things I could’ve said and decided not to, because I thought you’d find them inflammatory.   My comments were intended to be as mild as I could make them.   And still you object. 
 

Seriously,  if you found this post offensive maybe we shouldn’t exchange posts.  I’m fine with that.   Your call. 

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, Nickster said:

You just told me the two defenses were really close.

 

They are Nick.  My comments are not contradictory.   I’m not a big fan of the Flus-Ballard defense.  I’m not a big fan of the Bradley defense either.  At least the Colts corners play a little tighter than they did with Flus.   
 

But the two defenses are more similar than not.  They have more in common than not. 
And I was respectful in my comments.  
 

Im not asking you to agree with me.   You’re free to think what you want.  I’m just explaining my views to you. 

[Nickster]

24 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

For the life of me, I have no idea what you’re complaining about.  There are four paragraphs in my post and I think only one of them is even slightly critical of you.  Otherwise I made comments explaining my views. 
 

I assure you, there were other things I could’ve said and decided not to, because I thought you’d find them inflammatory.   My comments were intended to be as mild as I could make them.   And still you object. 
 

Seriously,  if you found this post offensive maybe we shouldn’t exchange posts.  I’m fine with that.   Your call. 

18 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

They are Nick.  My comments are not contradictory.   I’m not a big fan of the Flus-Ballard defense.  I’m not a big fan of the Bradley defense either.  At least the Colts corners play a little tighter than they did with Flus.   
 

But the two defenses are more similar than not.  They have more in common than not. 
And I was respectful in my comments.  
 

Im not asking you to agree with me.   You’re free to think what you want.  I’m just explaining my views to you. 

[jvan1973]

6 hours ago, Nickster said:

You just told me the two defenses were really close.

 

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2022/9/8/23337683/new-colts-dc-gus-bradleys-defense-part-2-compared-to-matt-eberflus

[Defjamz26]

Ballard should be studying the Jets GM closely. He just drafted the OROY and DROY. They had an extra pick last year from being aggressive and trading Jamal Adams who many considered the heart of their team. And mind you, Breece Hall would have been a OROY candidate had he not have gotten hurt. 
 

In FA they signed Laken Tomlinson for a 3 year deal, Braxton Berrios, Jordan Whitehead, DJ Reed, CJ Uzomah, Tyler Conklin, and others. Now we’re all of those guys studs? No. But they all contributed in some way and the team saw a remarkable turn around. Maybe they were “overpaid” but it’s better to overpay for middling talent and add a veteran presence than to settle for below average players.

 

I think what they did this year is a perfect example of how to use FA to supplement the draft. This is the type of offseason I would like to see the Colts have. Trade guys like Pittman, Moore, MAC, Buckner, etc… and bring in some mid level FAs to shore up some holes. Then use the draft to get a future QB, a WR1 (or trade for Higgins), and maybe an Edge rusher. 
 

I think Ballard severely underestimates the value of having solid capable veterans on the roster. We got great production out of McLeod and Gilmore. Yeah you may have to overpay sometimes but an upgrade is an upgrade. I would always rather overpay a Terron Armstead than roll into camp with Matt Pryor as the projected starting LT.

[Nickster]

42 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2022/9/8/23337683/new-colts-dc-gus-bradleys-defense-part-2-compared-to-matt-eberflus

Yes they both use even fronts.  The assignments from the snap are different as it gets both for run fits and pass rush.  They were going to move Shaq from Will to Mike and that ought to tell you something about how different the responsibilities are.  Gus uses a SAm a lot and Flus rarely used a Sam.Flus is into titee bumping and Bradley looks for penetration from his DL.
 

Coverage wise both play zone most of the time as has almost every other NFL team for the last 20 years.  I’m sure Gus plays some 2 but very rarely.    I didn’t watch all22 after Denver but Gilmore played a lot of press both press bail and press man.

 

Flus coverage relies on coming up and tackling while Gus likes to disrupt timing more.  These are pretty big differences.

 

so neither blitzes much is and both play even fronts.  That’s very general.  IMO.  After that they play much differently from what I saw and what the article says.

 

[coltsfeva]

On 2/8/2023 at 9:26 AM, philba101 said:

GMs Howie Roseman, Brett Veach discuss aggressive moves that led to Super Bowl LVII berths! This is a very interesting article about how the NFL is setup. Both the GM"s of the Eagles and Chiefs talk about how they believe being willing to be more aggressive than other teams gives them a competitive advantage. Chris Ballard could learn a lot from these two GM's. Here are the excerpts that stuck out to me the most.

 

1. The moves looked like gambles. They paid off big-time with a Super Bowl berth. Roseman said Monday that he never fears taking a big swing when the alternative is settling for mediocrity.

2. "When we won a championship, we'd made aggressive decisions, and we had taken some risks, and we saw that it's hard because the league is designed like a bell curve," he said during Super Bowl LVII Opening Night. "They want most teams to be in the middle of the bell curve. So for you to take a chance and try to get to the top of the bell curve, you probably have to risk being at the opposite end. I think for us, it would be worse to fall in the middle than it would be taking a chance to be great and maybe falling back."

3. Brett Veach-We've got to be calculated, but at the same time, you can't just sit back and wait for things to happen. (Chris Ballard) You have to make things happen. I certainly got a taste of that in Philly and was able to carry that to Kansas City."

4. The Eagles have done a good job of adapting and adjusting over the years and maybe having a thought process or a path charted out, but then they have to quickly veer. And you have to be able to do that, whether that be in free agency, signing players, or trading players and having to alter your route. You have to have a plan, stick to it, but take calculated swings."

5. When you're kind of at a crossroads there, you have to be aggressive in another way, and that's acquiring picks and not being afraid to make moves like (trading Hill) (Who trades one of the top receivers in the league?) It's one of those things that you plan, and then when reality hits, it's harder than you think because there is an emotional aspect to players and legacies and what have you. But credit to the staff and the organization for sticking behind the plan. These guys have done a tremendous job, and we've got one more game to go, and we'll see how it goes."

6. Brett Veach-Fearlessness in the face of challenging situations has separated Kansas City and Philadelphia from the middle of that bell curve. "You have to make things happen in this business and this league," Veach said. "Things aren't just going to fall into your lap. Good luck is just a product of good preparation and planning. 

https://www.nfl.com/news/gms-howie-roseman-brett-veach-discuss-aggressive-moves-that-led-to-super-bowl-lv

 

  There’s no denying Roseman made some good moves but he got his QB on the cheap. Let’s see what happens when he has to pay his QB, while paying $20 million a year for Brown and some other FA contracts. Think LA Rams East. 
  

 

 

[Dark Superman]

Chris Ballard could learn a lot from Howie Roseman.

[OLD FAN MAN]

On 2/8/2023 at 9:26 AM, philba101 said:

GMs Howie Roseman, Brett Veach discuss aggressive moves that led to Super Bowl LVII berths! This is a very interesting article about how the NFL is setup. Both the GM"s of the Eagles and Chiefs talk about how they believe being willing to be more aggressive than other teams gives them a competitive advantage. Chris Ballard could learn a lot from these two GM's. Here are the excerpts that stuck out to me the most.

 

1. The moves looked like gambles. They paid off big-time with a Super Bowl berth. Roseman said Monday that he never fears taking a big swing when the alternative is settling for mediocrity.

2. "When we won a championship, we'd made aggressive decisions, and we had taken some risks, and we saw that it's hard because the league is designed like a bell curve," he said during Super Bowl LVII Opening Night. "They want most teams to be in the middle of the bell curve. So for you to take a chance and try to get to the top of the bell curve, you probably have to risk being at the opposite end. I think for us, it would be worse to fall in the middle than it would be taking a chance to be great and maybe falling back."

3. Brett Veach-We've got to be calculated, but at the same time, you can't just sit back and wait for things to happen. (Chris Ballard) You have to make things happen. I certainly got a taste of that in Philly and was able to carry that to Kansas City."

4. The Eagles have done a good job of adapting and adjusting over the years and maybe having a thought process or a path charted out, but then they have to quickly veer. And you have to be able to do that, whether that be in free agency, signing players, or trading players and having to alter your route. You have to have a plan, stick to it, but take calculated swings."

5. When you're kind of at a crossroads there, you have to be aggressive in another way, and that's acquiring picks and not being afraid to make moves like (trading Hill) (Who trades one of the top receivers in the league?) It's one of those things that you plan, and then when reality hits, it's harder than you think because there is an emotional aspect to players and legacies and what have you. But credit to the staff and the organization for sticking behind the plan. These guys have done a tremendous job, and we've got one more game to go, and we'll see how it goes."

6. Brett Veach-Fearlessness in the face of challenging situations has separated Kansas City and Philadelphia from the middle of that bell curve. "You have to make things happen in this business and this league," Veach said. "Things aren't just going to fall into your lap. Good luck is just a product of good preparation and planning. 

https://www.nfl.com/news/gms-howie-roseman-brett-veach-discuss-aggressive-moves-that-led-to-super-bowl-lv

 

hope ballard takes heed to this

[OLD FAN MAN]

On 2/8/2023 at 10:36 AM, richard pallo said:

I don’t think the criticism that Ballard is not aggressive holds much water.  The moves did not all work out but he has been aggressive.  He made an aggressive move in trading for Wentz and Ryan both quarterbacks his coach thought he could win with.  He traded a 1st rd pick for Buckner which was the 13th pick and that worked out fine.  He didn’t sit there and wait for JT to fall to him he aggressively made the trade to move up and get him.  Last year he traded a future 3rd to get Nick Cross.  Oh and he traded Sin to get an ER in Yannick and he led the team in sacks.  Saying Ballard is not aggressive and doesn’t take swings is really way off the mark and not a fair criticism at all.  He has definitely taken plenty of swings.

he has had to many swings and misses in his low tier talent