Chris Ballard Presser at 4:15

[NewColtsFan]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

I'm listening back because I missed the first half of the presser. Holder is basically representing Taylor. He said 'I know one of his concerns is the tag, is it true he offered to come in if you agreed not to use the tag?' 

 

I've never been anti Holder, but he's off the rails on this issue. Totally in the bag for one side against the other. Lots of other media guys appear to be doing the same.

So Holder is asking one of the tough questions and you’re not happy?    This makes him “off the rails”?    How so? 
 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

So Holder is asking one of the tough questions and you’re not happy?    This makes him “off the rails”?    How so? 
 

 

Wait a minute. You previously talked about loaded questions. You don't think that's a loaded question?

[NewColtsFan]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Wait a minute. You previously talked about loaded questions. You don't think that's a loaded question?

I’m not sure how it’s anymore loaded than the questions you wanted?   So Holder is asking,  and I was surprised to see that you’re not happy.   I thought you’d be happy that a local media asked a tough question.  

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I’m not sure how it’s anymore loaded than the questions you wanted?   So Holder is asking,  and I was surprised to see that you’re not happy.   I thought you’d be happy that a local media asked a tough question.  

 

I disagree that it's a tough question. I think he's asking a question from the perspective of the player and his agent, and he's supposed to be a neutral media member. He's clearly not, and that's become obvious over the last couple of weeks.

 

The question I wanted asked was not loaded, but it was asked, and I'm glad. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I don’t know if this will be fixed but listening to Ballard makes you think it will be lol.

[cdgacoltsfan]

3 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Moss should be back really soon.

Ballard -Anthony is going to be freakin good.

Ballard didn't say AR is going to be freaking good. He was referencing the area scout named Anthony that pushed for Jaylin Jones. Ballard said Jaylin Jones is going to be really freaking good 

[NewColtsFan]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree that it's a tough question. I think he's asking a question from the perspective of the player and his agent, and he's supposed to be a neutral media member. He's clearly not, and that's become obvious over the last couple of weeks.

 

The question I wanted asked was not loaded, but it was asked, and I'm glad. 

He’s asking a question based on inside info he’s reportedly received from Taylor and his agent.   And you think that somehow makes Holder biased?   Sorry, I completely disagree.   It’s not an easy question, but Ballard is paid to take tough questions.   
 

Part of my issue previously with your tough questions was the timing.   I thought the timing was bad 4-5 weeks ago when things were starting to calm down.   But today was the day.   The time to ask any and all tough questions was today.   And I don’t care if it was from Taylor’s perspective, I think that’s incredibly healthy given that I’d guess this community is roughly 95-5 pro Colts and anti-Taylor.   I think it’s a great thing to ask questions from Taylor’s perspective.   I don’t understand the objection.   
 

By the way, as far as I can tell,  the video is still not up in the website, and it’s not up on YouTube, at least not that I have found. 

[Btown_Colt]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

He’s asking a question based on inside info he’s reportedly received from Taylor and his agent.   And you think that somehow makes Holder biased?   Sorry, I completely disagree.   It’s not an easy question, but Ballard is paid to take tough questions.   
 

Part of my issue previously with your tough questions was the timing.   I thought the timing was bad 4-5 weeks ago when things were starting to calm down.   But today was the day.   The time to ask any and all tough questions was today.   And I don’t care if it was from Taylor’s perspective, I think that’s incredibly healthy given that I’d guess this community is roughly 95-5 pro Colts and anti-Taylor.   I think it’s a great thing to ask questions from Taylor’s perspective.   I don’t understand the objection.   
 

By the way, as far as I can tell,  the video is still not up in the website, and it’s not up on YouTube, at least not that I have found. 

It’s all here I believe. Just first few minutes and last is a reporter talking. But this is what I was able to find and listen to.

[Stephen]

1 hour ago, IndyEric07 said:

I still am wondering wth is CB thinking at the WR position!? The lady asked about the depth and he says they have plenty of time to sort all that depth out!? Does he not know the 1st game is less than a week away??? Does he not know it takes a long time for QBs and WRs to get their timing down? Im sure McKenzie/Strahan/etc will be lifted from the PS at some point, but CB needs to trade for a sure top 4 wr depth wise asap!

Not really we have 4 receiving tes and a receiving rb to go along with our 4 wrs. We should be  fine

[Stephen]

3 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Listening to him I think we are going with the OL we have.  Don’t think any veteran FA are coming.  He’s going to let this group play.  Shane actually picked up one of his lineman from the Eagles.  So he’s happy about that I’m sure.  He also seemed excited about Rainmann’s development.  Going with the youth and counting on the new OL coach.  Seemed excited about the DE we picked up from Dallas too.  Talked quite a bit about him.

Oh I just got off the phone with my friend who is a cowboys fan. He was livid we picked up that de. He said we need to trade him back to them for a wr lol

[w87r]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Meh. Fifth round picks get cut all the time, and 7th round picks get kept all the time. I don't think it's a big deal either way.

 

But I do appreciate how emphatic he was about the players at that position. I think it's going to be tough sledding at times, but I think Bradley's defense is conducive to having young corners learning on the fly, so I'm not as worried about that spot as others have been. And I think they hoped they could sneak Rush through waivers and get him back on the PS, and I bet they'll put in a claim if he ever gets waived again this season.

Yeah, he almost made it through waivers too.... 30/31 teams.

 

 

Chiefs had the last spot in waiver order.

[Stephen]

52 minutes ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

Ballard didn't say AR is going to be freaking good. He was referencing the area scout named Anthony that pushed for Jaylin Jones. Ballard said Jaylin Jones is going to be really freaking good 

Rush probably  will to especially  with Reid getting  him right

[ShuteAt168]

55 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree that it's a tough question. I think he's asking a question from the perspective of the player and his agent, and he's supposed to be a neutral media member. He's clearly not, and that's become obvious over the last couple of weeks.

 

The question I wanted asked was not loaded, but it was asked, and I'm glad. 

You are exactly right. Holder is carrying water for JT. 

[csmopar]

14 minutes ago, w87r said:

Yeah, he almost made it through waivers too.... 30/31 teams.

 

 

Chiefs had the last spot in waiver order.

Aren’t there 32 teams?

[Jason_]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

Aren’t there 32 teams?

 

but the Colts (the 32nd team) wouldn't/couldn't put in a waiver claim on a player they themselves waived

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

but the Colts (the 32nd team) wouldn't/couldn't put in a waiver claim on a player they themselves waived

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree that it's a tough question. I think he's asking a question from the perspective of the player and his agent, and he's supposed to be a neutral media member. He's clearly not, and that's become obvious over the last couple of weeks.

 

The question I wanted asked was not loaded, but it was asked, and I'm glad. 

As long as Holder is asking questions about a member of the Colts, then I think all questions — especially on a big day like today — are fair game.   
 

If it’s from the perspective of the player and agent — I’m fine with that.   That doesn’t make Holder less neutral.   Just as questions from a more Ballard or Irsay perspective are fine too.   All points of view should be represented.   Props to Holder for getting any inside info that he’s received.  He puts his cards on the table for all to see.   Fair is fair.   If I’m his editor, I don’t have a problem with anything he’s said or done.   I appreciate you may disagree. 

[indyagent17]

No team is afraid of our receivers, they have no separation. This worries me because AR may feel he has to run more 

[w87r]

23 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Aren’t there 32 teams?

We are the other team, we weren't putting claim in on him.

[throwing BBZ]

2 hours ago, stitches said:

Hidden in all the JT talk... what made an impression on me was Ballard vocal and emphatic endorsement and bet on Jaylon Jones. Not only did he talk glowingly about him and the scout that stood on the table for him... but he made the comparison against Darius Rush and he said Jones is one of the main reason for Rush to be cut. He must be pretty certain about Jones' potential... this can so easily be held against him if it does not pan out the way he sees it. 

 

 Not sure what Turay and Banogu have done to CB's "held against him rating".

Rush could tip the balance just to far.

[w87r]

Couple thoughts on the presser.

 

1. That was a great presser all the way around. Good questions (little too Taylor heavy, but TBE) Great answers by Ballard

2. I had no problem with Holders question about the franchise tag. Ballard was the one who brought it up, Holder just piggybacked off of it.

3. Kinda pumped up about Jayon Jones

4. Not worried about how many WRs are on active roster, we have a lot on the PS and 2 can be elevated each week if need be. Definitely wouldn't be surprised if we go outside for an additional one, but I doubt it at this point.

 

 

Ballard actually making me reconsider my disdain for Taylor right now. I may be able to support him when he returns week 6.

[csmopar]

25 minutes ago, w87r said:

Couple thoughts on the presser.

 

1. That was a great presser all the way around. Good questions (little too Taylor heavy, but TBE) Great answers by Ballard

2. I had no problem with Holders question about the franchise tag. Ballard was the one who brought it up, Holder just piggybacked off of it.

3. Kinda pumped up about Jayon Jones

4. Not worried about how many WRs are on active roster, we have a lot on the PS and 2 can be elevated each week if need be. Definitely wouldn't be surprised if we go outside for an additional one, but I doubt it at this point.

 

 

Ballard actually making me reconsider my disdain for Taylor right now. I may be able to support him when he returns week 6.

Ehhh ask me again in 4-5 weeks 

[Indyfan4life]

Someone mind breaking this down for me? Didn’t get to watch. 

[1959Colts]

47 minutes ago, indyagent17 said:

No team is afraid of our receivers, they have no separation. This worries me because AR may feel he has to run more 

Maybe Downs will get some more separation?

[VikingsFanInChennai]

52 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Too much reading into CBA does this for'ya!

 

[GoColts8818]

37 minutes ago, w87r said:

Couple thoughts on the presser.

 

1. That was a great presser all the way around. Good questions (little too Taylor heavy, but TBE) Great answers by Ballard

2. I had no problem with Holders question about the franchise tag. Ballard was the one who brought it up, Holder just piggybacked off of it.

3. Kinda pumped up about Jayon Jones

4. Not worried about how many WRs are on active roster, we have a lot on the PS and 2 can be elevated each week if need be. Definitely wouldn't be surprised if we go outside for an additional one, but I doubt it at this point.

 

 

Ballard actually making me reconsider my disdain for Taylor right now. I may be able to support him when he returns week 6.

Yeah, I thought the franchise tag question was fine.  He pretty much said I was told this can you confirm if it’s true?  That’s his job.  
 

I also view all the WRs on the practice squad as kinda having a tryout for one or two spots on the active roster full time.  I am sure the Colts do as you said and elevate one or two of them for a few weeks until they make decision on who they want on the active roster going forward.  

[w87r]

15 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Ehhh ask me again in 4-5 weeks 

About what?

 

Disdain for Taylor?

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

6 minutes ago, Indyfan4life said:

Someone mind breaking this down for me? Didn’t get to watch. 

https://fb.watch/mLHK-IT-6v/?mibextid=cr9u03

[Indyfan4life]

2 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

https://fb.watch/mLHK-IT-6v/?mibextid=cr9u03

Thanks. I’ll have to watch it when I get home. 

[compuls1v3]

59 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Not sure what Turay and Banogu have done to CB's "held against him rating".

Rush could tip the balance just to far.

I think those could be different though.  Those two were busts.  The idea is that Rush could be good, and we let one get away, I think.  I'm high on Jones from what I've seen though.

[compuls1v3]

17 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Yeah, I thought the franchise tag question was fine.  He pretty much said I was told this can you confirm if it’s true?  That’s his job.  
 

I also view all the WRs on the practice squad as kinda having a tryout for one or two spots on the active roster full time.  I am sure the Colts do as you said and elevate one or two of them for a few weeks until they make decision on who they want on the active roster going forward.  

Megastrachan! 

[Rhodelesstraveled]

JT is the whole team.  You lose him you are going no where.  This team is going no where.  

The OL of this team is horrendous.  JT is still a stud.  

[AKB]

56 minutes ago, Indyfan4life said:

Someone mind breaking this down for me? Didn’t get to watch. 

in short:

 

we aren't gonna give Taylor up for pebbles. He's a valuable human and football player. 

 

sometimes relationships can be strained and then fixed.

 

Ballard isn't gonna discuss contracts

 

and, look....

[Indyfan4life]

34 minutes ago, AKB said:

in short:

 

we aren't gonna give Taylor up for pebbles. He's a valuable human and football player. 

 

sometimes relationships can be strained and then fixed.

 

Ballard isn't gonna discuss contracts

 

and, look....

[Superman]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

As long as Holder is asking questions about a member of the Colts, then I think all questions — especially on a big day like today — are fair game.   
 

If it’s from the perspective of the player and agent — I’m fine with that.   That doesn’t make Holder less neutral.   Just as questions from a more Ballard or Irsay perspective are fine too.   All points of view should be represented.   Props to Holder for getting any inside info that he’s received.  He puts his cards on the table for all to see.   Fair is fair.   If I’m his editor, I don’t have a problem with anything he’s said or done.   I appreciate you may disagree. 

 

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

He’s asking a question based on inside info he’s reportedly received from Taylor and his agent.   And you think that somehow makes Holder biased?   Sorry, I completely disagree.   It’s not an easy question, but Ballard is paid to take tough questions.   
 

Part of my issue previously with your tough questions was the timing.   I thought the timing was bad 4-5 weeks ago when things were starting to calm down.   But today was the day.   The time to ask any and all tough questions was today.   And I don’t care if it was from Taylor’s perspective, I think that’s incredibly healthy given that I’d guess this community is roughly 95-5 pro Colts and anti-Taylor.   I think it’s a great thing to ask questions from Taylor’s perspective.   I don’t understand the objection.   
 

By the way, as far as I can tell,  the video is still not up in the website, and it’s not up on YouTube, at least not that I have found. 

 

No, the question doesn't make Holder biased. It's the fact that he has clearly taken the side of Taylor and his agent -- who are obviously feeding him one-sided information -- that makes him biased. And that has been evident outside of today's presser.

 

To set the table, I'd like to state that I do not claim to represent this community. I don't know if it's 95% anti Taylor, but I agree a lot of the fans here are upset with him. That's not my responsibility. I'm not anti Taylor, and I don't think that my distaste for the way Holder has covered this is reflective of any bias against Taylor. I think Taylor has a losing argument, but I am nowhere near as put off by this contract situation as other fans appear to be.

 

But I think this particular question was pushing an agenda. The topic is fair game, but the question was loaded, and slanted toward Taylor's side. If he had asked Ballard 'would the Colts ever agree not to use the tag on a player going into the last year of his contract', that would have been more objective. 

 

What happened is Ballard was asked if he sees Taylor continuing to be part of the team, and he said he hopes so, he's never said otherwise, and then brought up the narrative about using the tag. He said 'we've never used it,' basically saying it's premature for everyone to assume they'd just tag Taylor.

 

Then Holder said 'That is a big concern of his.' So now he's speaking for Taylor. Then Holder says 'I think this is true, he offered to come in if you guys would take the tag off the table. Would you...' And Ballard starts responding, denying that the Colts agreed to that, then starts saying he's never lied to Taylor. I don't think that line of questioning was objective, and I think that's the first priority of a journalist.

 

I think it's clear that I am not opposed to tough questions. I wasn't against them two weeks ago when you were telling me they were inappropriate, and I'm not against them now. I don't think this was a tough question. I think he was promoting the agenda of Taylor and his agent. And I think he's been pushing that agenda -- pro Taylor, anti Colts -- for at least a couple weeks now.

[Superman]

6 hours ago, compuls1v3 said:

I liked his responses about not paying one player.  Plenty of players on the team HAVE been payed.  At the right time.  Made the person asking the question look foolish.

 

Go across the locker room and ask Taylor's teammate, with whom he shares an agent, about how "hard it is" to get an extension done with the Colts. 

 

Ballard kept his cool. I'd have gone in a little harder on that one.

[w87r]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

But I think this particular question was pushing an agenda. The topic is fair game, but the question was loaded, and slanted toward Taylor's side. If he had asked Ballard 'would the Colts ever agree not to use the tag on a player going into the last year of his contract', that would have been more objective. 

First off, great post

 

 

You're correct the phrasing of it was tilted.

 

 

Should off been asked exactly like you posted.

 

 

Have me reconsidering my thoughts on it. Definitely didn't mind it being asked, as Ballard open the door to it, the phrasing was bad though.

[Superman]

Definitely an objective reporter here...

 

 

As opposed to this from Hicks (who also had an awful take earlier today, btw):

 

 

[adubb84]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree that it's a tough question. I think he's asking a question from the perspective of the player and his agent, and he's supposed to be a neutral media member. He's clearly not, and that's become obvious over the last couple of weeks.

 

The question I wanted asked was not loaded, but it was asked, and I'm glad. 

https://x.com/holderstephen/status/1697053976208838659?s=46&t=6WX3zBkkfPo-EkUUVsp_PQ
 

This tweet from Holder speaks to me that he’s taking the side of Taylor. 
 

“The Colts certainly are entitled to do as they wish with contracts, but the logic here is weird to me.

What does extending contracts have to do with how many games you won last year? And what happens if they win four or five games

THIS year? No extensions next year too?”

 

His observations and the insights lately paint the Colts in a bad light and are set to make Ballard look incompetent, JT the good guy fighting for what’s right. Keefer did it last year too (Luck story, Saturday Story, etc). I get that negative press drives engagement and conversation but it shouldn’t be at the expense of making us look like a floundering organization. 
 

Reports should report without an agenda. Just seems like hot takes and clicks. 

Just now, Superman said:

Definitely an objective reporter here...

 

 

As opposed to this from Hicks (who also had an awful take earlier today, btw):

 

 

Literally quoted this too! Lol. It’s obvious. Not even hiding it. 

[Moosejawcolt]

7 hours ago, RollerColt said:

"I'm not going to just let him walk out of the building"

 

"When you're still having effects from last year's surgery and still complaining of pain, we're not going to put a player on the field and force him to play"

"He still has pain in the ankle" - Answer to the question if he thinks Taylor is lying. 

I'm confused by this. So the player says he still has pain but goes to the extremes of asking for a trade when he doesn't get an extension!!  How could u even take of wanting that type of player on your team? I really don't get it.