Chris Ballard Presser at 4:15

[GoColts8818]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I follow the league and other sports so impossible for me. Most people do. I want to keep up and know who is injured by Friday for example.

Yeah and I like to follow it too.  Yet I have certain people I don’t watch or listen to at all because I don’t like them.  For example I don’t watch any of the argument shows and I couldn’t tell you the last time I watched ESPN.  I stay informed just fine.  It’s really not that hard.

[masterlock]

4 hours ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

You obviously watch Kent Sterling....You're basically plagiarizing his rap.

Oh I see, so when someone on YouTube expresses an opinion, then they get first dibs on the opinion, even if it's one you may or may not already hold. Gotcha.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, GoColts8818 said:

Yeah and I like to follow it too.  Yet I have certain people I don’t watch or listen to at all because I don’t like them.  I stay informed just fine.  It’s really not that hard.

If I am watching the NFL Channel to see what is going on around the league and how the matchups are with all the teams, then all of sudden Colts news comes on, I then pay extra attention. Then when they get talked about in a bad a way, I couldn't avoid it. I think you get my point. I guess if I wasn't into keeping up with everything and just wanted to see if we won or lost on Sunday, I could ignore it. I am not wired like that because I want to know what every team status is regarding injuries, matchups, etc.. I am ok with hearing it, I just think a lot of it is silly and old. 

[chad72]

4 hours ago, AKB said:

I think Granson will have value like Conklin from the Jets, basically the same player type. 

 

But Dallas Clark? NO, I don't think so 45

 

He reminds me more of Jacob Tamme than Dallas Clark. Will get open but not run away from you. He separates but doesn't give too much YAC.

[GoColts8818]

13 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

If I am watching the NFL Channel to see what is going on around the league and how the matchups are with all the teams, then all of sudden Colts news comes on, I then pay extra attention. Then when they get talked about in a bad a way, I couldn't avoid it. I think you get my point. I guess if I wasn't into keeping up with everything and just wanted to see if we won or lost on Sunday, I could ignore it. I am not wired like that because I want to know what every team status is regarding injuries, matchups, etc.. I am ok with hearing it, I just think a lot of it is silly and old. 

Yeah I don’t watch those shows.  They aren’t giving news most of the time.  They are giving opinions.  Frankly I watch very little sports tv outside of games.  I get news from Twitter or the web where I can just read the story and turn it off if I don’t want to read it.  I also mostly follow beat writers too that just give news not opinions.
 

The one thing I will do when I am driving is listen to sports radio but if they start talking about something I don’t like I just change the station to a different sports radio station.  I don’t need their opinions if I just don’t agree with them.  I can form my own based on the news I gather just fine.  For the record I am NOT saying you or anyone else can’t.

[compuls1v3]

9 hours ago, AKB said:

I think Granson will have value like Conklin from the Jets, basically the same player type. 

 

But Dallas Clark? NO, I don't think so 45

I think it will come down to his blocking.  Hes a great target down field.

[Superman]

18 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

While that may seemed biased, I think it’s fair. Holder has been accused many times by Colts fans (myself included) of carrying water for the Colts. If he is actually on the side of a player for once, and holding the organization accountable, then there must be some merit to that.

 

I don't think the reporters who cover the team are supposed to be on either side. They're supposed to report the facts.

 

When the organization does something that they need to be held accountable for, I'm all about asking the right questions, and getting statements and facts on the record. 

[Superman]

21 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I’ve been off-line for a while and see that you’ve made a series of posts.   So I’ll try to answer them one at a time as best I can.  
 

If Chris Ballard can say that Taylor is not getting a new contract right now because of a 4-win season,  then I think Stephon Holder is entitled to use the same 4-win logic to look at the Ballard/Irsay regime with a very critical eye.   Literally a year ago we were all talking about the Colts being the AFC South favorite , Matt Ryan was going to get a 3-4 year extension, Frank Reich was safe and Jeff Saturday was an ESPN analyst.   Perhaps the Ballard/Irsay duo is deserving of a more critical look. 
 

As for Holder, I’m fine with his questions that show he’s spoken with Taylor and the agent.   Completely fine.   And every other reporter wishes they had the access Holder has.   Holder was literally telling Ballard this is the Taylor/agent position.  Nothing wrong with that.   That does not make Holder pro-Taylor or anti-Colts.   It’s up to Ballard to respond as he wishes.  But I don’t see anything wrong with his line if questioning.  Ballard and Irsay have earned every tough question they get.  
 

You and I completely disagree on the objective aspect.  I don’t see/hear anything from todays presser that has me wondering about Holder’s objectivity.  
 

Heads up:  in another of your posts I’ll point out a flaw I think Holder made in a written piece he did for ESPN.   I don’t know if he did it before or after the Ballard presser, but something he wrote jumped out at me, and if I were his editor, I’d ask him to tweek it. 

 

First, if a person doesn't understand the logic behind Ballard's 'four wins' comment, especially given his more complete explanation yesterday and at his pre-camp presser, then I think they're being willfully obtuse. If a person wants to take issue with the Colts' stance that they are not going to extend JT right now, there could be a fair debate. But pretending that we don't know what Ballard meant, while simultaneously misrepresenting his statement, is bad work. I'm not surprised when fans do this, but Holder should be better.

 

Second, I'm fine with us disagreeing on this. But Holder's lack of objectivity has been on display over the last 2-3 weeks, and it was obvious yesterday. 

[Defjamz26]

26 minutes ago, Superman said:

I don't think the reporters who cover the team are supposed to be on either side. They're supposed to report the facts.

In theory yes, but they’re fans too. Holder probably likes Taylor just as much as the rest of us do. Difference is he’s probably actually got to spend a decent amount of time with him, so he knows him more than we do.  I think he’s reporting things accurately, but the fan in him is definitely showing on this one.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

In theory yes, but they’re fans too. Holder probably likes Taylor just as much as the rest of us do. Difference is he’s probably actually got to spend a decent amount of time with him, so he knows him more than we do.  I think he’s reporting things accurately, but the fan in him is definitely showing on this one.

 

I don't have a problem with Holder explaining Taylor's side of things. I have a problem with him taking Taylor's side of things. 

 

I think the lead reporter for the Colts should hold himself to a reasonable standard of objectivity, especially in a situation like this where there's a lot of uncertainty about what's going on. Not just in theory, I think it's his responsibility.

[RollerColt]

So I just read that GMs are required to be available to the media at least twice a year. With the way things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t hear from Chris again for the remainder of this year. 
 

Quote

Through the club communications department and in response to the intense public interest in roster construction and development, club general managers and secondary football executives must each be available to the media at least twice on a yearly basis – once from the Scouting Combine through the week following the NFL Draft and a second time either during training camp or following the final roster reductions to 53 players. As per the Anti-Tampering Policy, a secondary football executive refers to an individual who has the title of assistant general manager and/or is next in line to the primary football executive, supervising the Player Personnel department, including college and pro scouting departments.

https://www.profootballwriters.org/nfl-media-access-policy/

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, RollerColt said:

So I just read that GMs are required to be available to the media at least twice a year. With the way things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t hear from Chris again for the remainder of this year. 
 

https://www.profootballwriters.org/nfl-media-access-policy/

I know some people don’t remember this, but for a number of years, Ballard did quarterly meetings with the media in-Season.   So he’d do one after week 4, 8, 12 and 16.    Then he’d do one at the combine and he’d do one at some point after the start of free agency and then pre-draft.  There’s seven meetings with the media we had in 17, 18, 19 and 20.  
 

The in-season meetings changed during the Wentz year in 21 when Ballard did one after week 8, and 16,  but not after week 4 or 12,  if I remember correctly.   The other out of season meetings continued.   And it got all blown to heck last year in-season as well.   
 

I have no idea what to expect this season?   There are all sorts of arguments either way, but my hunch would be for less access in-season, but I’d be happy to be wrong. 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

11 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I know some people don’t remember this, but for a number of years, Ballard did quarterly meetings with the media in-Season.   So he’d do one after week 4, 8, 12 and 16.    Then he’d do one at the combine and he’d do one at some point after the start of free agency and then pre-draft.  There’s seven meetings with the media we had in 17, 18, 19 and 20.  
 

The in-season meetings changed during the Wentz year in 21 when Ballard did one after week 8, and 16,  but not after week 4 or 12,  if I remember correctly.   The other out of season meetings continued.   And it got all blown to heck last year in-season as well.   
 

I have no idea what to expect this season?   There are all sorts of arguments either way, but my hunch would be for less access in-season, but I’d be happy to be wrong. 

 

Yeah, his pressers seem to go(or lack of) like the teams go. They've been fewer in recent seasons. 

[stitches]

23 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I know some people don’t remember this, but for a number of years, Ballard did quarterly meetings with the media in-Season.   So he’d do one after week 4, 8, 12 and 16.    Then he’d do one at the combine and he’d do one at some point after the start of free agency and then pre-draft.  There’s seven meetings with the media we had in 17, 18, 19 and 20.  
 

The in-season meetings changed during the Wentz year in 21 when Ballard did one after week 8, and 16,  but not after week 4 or 12,  if I remember correctly.   The other out of season meetings continued.   And it got all blown to heck last year in-season as well.   
 

I have no idea what to expect this season?   There are all sorts of arguments either way, but my hunch would be for less access in-season, but I’d be happy to be wrong. 

He also used to meet with the media after the draft and have a film session with them explaining why they drafted the players they drafted. I was really excited to hear about their thought processes in more detail about Richardson, but for the first time this year he decided not to do it...  

 

Agreed with @RollerColt and you though... we will probably not much access this year. I kind of expect him to not have a presser until January... unless something out of the ordinary happens(we trade Taylor or something of the sort). 

[NewColtsFan]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

First, if a person doesn't understand the logic behind Ballard's 'four wins' comment, especially given his more complete explanation yesterday and at his pre-camp presser, then I think they're being willfully obtuse. If a person wants to take issue with the Colts' stance that they are not going to extend JT right now, there could be a fair debate. But pretending that we don't know what Ballard meant, while simultaneously misrepresenting his statement, is bad work. I'm not surprised when fans do this, but Holder should be better.

 

Second, I'm fine with us disagreeing on this. But Holder's lack of objectivity has been on display over the last 2-3 weeks, and it was obvious yesterday. 

Let me ask you this….  If Nelson and Leonard and Smith had been drafted later than they were, and had the same careers,  and were due for contracts this year, do you think they would’ve been signed?   I do.   Ballard and Steichen would be calling them all fits in Steichen’s offense and Bradley’s defense.   It would be in the team’s best interest to sign them, so they would.   And we’d hear less about the 4-win season and the new coach as reasons for not signing players.  
 

Now you can point to Pittman and how that’s being handled.   I think Pitt is uncommonly mature and realizes he may not be a fit in Steichen’s offense long term.  So I believe he realizes his floor next Spring is roughly 3/54 and likely higher and if he doesn’t get it from the Colts he’ll get it from another team.  So he’s willing to bet on himself.  But he also plays a position less injury prone than RB. 
 

As for the free agent tag, I think Ballard is being pretty disingenuous.   Saying he’s never used it before isn’t saying all that much and then I believe he added it was wrong to assume he’d use it next spring.  (Audio was weak and I may have heard him wrong).  If Taylor still has value next spring, Ballard would use it if need be.   The only way he doesn’t use it is if Taylor plays, and plays poorly for whatever reason or is injured and JT has little value THEN Ballard wouldn't use the tag.   BFD.   
 

I know this post is long but I’d like to address an argument that I see here every day, all day.   That all Taylor has to do is ball out for about a half a season and show he’s healthy and can play at the 2021 Taylor level and he’ll get his new contract.   
 

Here are my thoughts… 

 

1.   100 percent of the risk is on Taylor.  0.0 risk goes to the Colts. 
 

2.  Taylor has to hope he doesn’t get hurt again.  He has to hope the line is dramatically improved again.  He has hope the new OL coach can improve the OL to play cohesively again.  
 

3.   Doing all that, does Taylor get to know what kind of offer he’d be playing for?   What’s the pot of gold at the end of the audition?   Suppose they can’t even agree on the compensation?   Taylor should assume all the risk without knowing if there’s an offer he’d even agree to? 
 

4.   Ballard saying Taylor shouldn’t be worried about getting the tag simply because they haven’t used it before seems pretty disingenuous to me.  Lots of things are happening that have never happened under Ballard before, the team is completely in unchartered water right now.  I don’t see Taylor doing things based on trust.  That seems shattered and it certainly feels like it went sour a very long time ago and not just in late July when camp opened. 
 

I don’t read much here about the Taylor perspective.   Wanted to offer the above to see what discussion it might raise.    I look forward to your thoughts even though I suspect we will not agree much. 
 

Sorry this went so long.  Much to talk about. 

[Zoltan]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

Let me ask you this….  If Nelson and Leonard and Smith had been drafted later than they were, and had the same careers,  and were due for contracts this year, do you think they would’ve been signed?   I do.   Ballard and Steichen would be calling them all fits in Steichen’s offense and Bradley’s defense.   It would be in the team’s best interest to sign them, so they would.   And we’d hear less about the 4-win season and the new coach as reasons for not signing players.  
 

Now you can point to Pittman and how that’s being handled.   I think Pitt is uncommonly mature and realizes he may not be a fit in Steichen’s offense long term.  So I believe he realizes his floor next Spring is roughly 3/54 and likely higher and if he doesn’t get it from the Colts he’ll get it from another team.  So he’s willing to bet on himself.  But he also plays a position less injury prone than RB. 
 

As for the free agent tag, I think Ballard is being pretty disingenuous.   Saying he’s never used it before isn’t saying all that much and then I believe he added it was wrong to assume he’d use it next spring.  (Audio was weak and I may have heard him wrong).  If Taylor still has value next spring, Ballard would use it if need be.   The only way he doesn’t use it is if Taylor plays, and plays poorly for whatever reason or is injured and JT has little value THEN Ballard wouldn't use the tag.   BFD.   
 

I know this post is long but I’d like to address an argument that I see here every day, all day.   That all Taylor has to do is ball out for about a half a season and show he’s healthy and can play at the 2021 Taylor level and he’ll get his new contract.   
 

Here are my thoughts… 

 

1.   100 percent of the risk is on Taylor.  0.0 risk goes to the Colts. 
 

2.  Taylor has to hope he doesn’t get hurt again.  He has to hope the line is dramatically improved again.  He has hope the new OL coach can improve the OL to play cohesively again.  
 

3.   Doing all that, does Taylor get to know what kind of offer he’d be playing for?   What’s the pot of gold at the end of the audition?   Suppose they can’t even agree on the compensation?   Taylor should assume all the risk without knowing if there’s an offer he’d even agree to? 
 

4.   Ballard saying Taylor shouldn’t be worried about getting the tag simply because they haven’t used it before seems pretty disingenuous to me.  Lots of things are happening that have never happened under Ballard before, the team is completely in unchartered water right now.  I don’t see Taylor doing things based on trust.  That seems shattered and it certainly feels like it went sour a very long time ago and not just in late July when camp opened. 
 

I don’t read much here about the Taylor perspective.   Wanted to offer the above to see what discussion it might raise.    I look forward to your thoughts even though I suspect we will not agree much. 
 

Sorry this went so long.  Much to talk about. 

I got a different impression from that comment on the tag. I took more as they  haven’t used the tag because they get deals done with the players. Now another part of the presser someone asked if he would tell Taylor that if he played they wouldn’t franchise tag him next year, which he replied no because I don’t want to lie to the players and have always been honest with them and didn’t want to say something that would make him a liar later. That tells me that if Taylor comes back and has a good year they would tag him if they can’t reach a deal. 

[csmopar]

6 hours ago, RollerColt said:

So I just read that GMs are required to be available to the media at least twice a year. With the way things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t hear from Chris again for the remainder of this year. 
 

https://www.profootballwriters.org/nfl-media-access-policy/

Then since m he’s already spoken multiple times this year, I guess we won’t hear from him for a while

[csmopar]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Let me ask you this….  If Nelson and Leonard and Smith had been drafted later than they were, and had the same careers,  and were due for contracts this year, do you think they would’ve been signed?   I do.   Ballard and Steichen would be calling them all fits in Steichen’s offense and Bradley’s defense.   It would be in the team’s best interest to sign them, so they would.   And we’d hear less about the 4-win season and the new coach as reasons for not signing players.  
 

Now you can point to Pittman and how that’s being handled.   I think Pitt is uncommonly mature and realizes he may not be a fit in Steichen’s offense long term.  So I believe he realizes his floor next Spring is roughly 3/54 and likely higher and if he doesn’t get it from the Colts he’ll get it from another team.  So he’s willing to bet on himself.  But he also plays a position less injury prone than RB. 
 

As for the free agent tag, I think Ballard is being pretty disingenuous.   Saying he’s never used it before isn’t saying all that much and then I believe he added it was wrong to assume he’d use it next spring.  (Audio was weak and I may have heard him wrong).  If Taylor still has value next spring, Ballard would use it if need be.   The only way he doesn’t use it is if Taylor plays, and plays poorly for whatever reason or is injured and JT has little value THEN Ballard wouldn't use the tag.   BFD.   
 

I know this post is long but I’d like to address an argument that I see here every day, all day.   That all Taylor has to do is ball out for about a half a season and show he’s healthy and can play at the 2021 Taylor level and he’ll get his new contract.   
 

Here are my thoughts… 

 

1.   100 percent of the risk is on Taylor.  0.0 risk goes to the Colts. 
 

2.  Taylor has to hope he doesn’t get hurt again.  He has to hope the line is dramatically improved again.  He has hope the new OL coach can improve the OL to play cohesively again.  
 

3.   Doing all that, does Taylor get to know what kind of offer he’d be playing for?   What’s the pot of gold at the end of the audition?   Suppose they can’t even agree on the compensation?   Taylor should assume all the risk without knowing if there’s an offer he’d even agree to? 
 

4.   Ballard saying Taylor shouldn’t be worried about getting the tag simply because they haven’t used it before seems pretty disingenuous to me.  Lots of things are happening that have never happened under Ballard before, the team is completely in unchartered water right now.  I don’t see Taylor doing things based on trust.  That seems shattered and it certainly feels like it went sour a very long time ago and not just in late July when camp opened. 
 

I don’t read much here about the Taylor perspective.   Wanted to offer the above to see what discussion it might raise.    I look forward to your thoughts even though I suspect we will not agree much. 
 

Sorry this went so long.  Much to talk about. 

Yes he should. That’s the contract he signed. He can be unhappy with it, he can sit out. But the reality of it is just that. He has no cards to play that will result in him being given a raise until he proves he’s healthy. It is really that simple. 

[throwing BBZ]

9 hours ago, compuls1v3 said:

I think it will come down to his blocking.  Hes a great target down field.

 

 They keep asking him to block and he keeps whiffing. He looks lazy and slow minded. He makes a few plays here and there, but most anyone they would incorporate in our offense would do that. All I see is "another" Frank/Ballard type guy that is a low level mediocrity. 

[Defjamz26]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Let me ask you this….  If Nelson and Leonard and Smith had been drafted later than they were, and had the same careers,  and were due for contracts this year, do you think they would’ve been signed?   I do.   Ballard and Steichen would be calling them all fits in Steichen’s offense and Bradley’s defense.   It would be in the team’s best interest to sign them, so they would.   And we’d hear less about the 4-win season and the new coach as reasons for not signing players.  

I totally agree with this thought. Only thing I’d add is that Leonard might be the exception. While he’s a fit in a Bradley D, we saw last year that the defense is fine without him. He’s more essential in Eberflus’ Tampa-2. But that’s a topic for another time.

 

If Nelson and/or Smith wanted to be extended, Steichen would have came in and said “Get it done”.

 

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

2.  Taylor has to hope he doesn’t get hurt again.  He has to hope the line is dramatically improved again.  He has hope the new OL coach can improve the OL to play cohesively again.  

This is an important point that people who are criticizing Taylor are missing. He’s in a lose-lose situation. If he gets hurt again it damages his value to any other teams. He also could have a bad season due to the poor O-line play or the coach just not using him enough/properly.

 

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

3.   Doing all that, does Taylor get to know what kind of offer he’d be playing for?   What’s the pot of gold at the end of the audition?   Suppose they can’t even agree on the compensation?   Taylor should assume all the risk without knowing if there’s an offer he’d even agree to?

Good point. The answer is probably no, which is also probably why he is *. He’s being asked to play a full season and risk injury for a contract that may either not be worth his skill set, or play good and not get offered a contract because he’s not a scheme fit.

 

Rest of your post was spot on as well.

[throwing BBZ]

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Let me ask you this….  If Nelson and Leonard and Smith had been drafted later than they were, and had the same careers,  and were due for contracts this year, do you think they would’ve been signed?   I do.   Ballard and Steichen would be calling them all fits in Steichen’s offense and Bradley’s defense.   It would be in the team’s best interest to sign them, so they would.   And we’d hear less about the 4-win season and the new coach as reasons for not signing players.  
 

Now you can point to Pittman and how that’s being handled.   I think Pitt is uncommonly mature and realizes he may not be a fit in Steichen’s offense long term.  So I believe he realizes his floor next Spring is roughly 3/54 and likely higher and if he doesn’t get it from the Colts he’ll get it from another team.  So he’s willing to bet on himself.  But he also plays a position less injury prone than RB. 
 

As for the free agent tag, I think Ballard is being pretty disingenuous.   Saying he’s never used it before isn’t saying all that much and then I believe he added it was wrong to assume he’d use it next spring.  (Audio was weak and I may have heard him wrong).  If Taylor still has value next spring, Ballard would use it if need be.   The only way he doesn’t use it is if Taylor plays, and plays poorly for whatever reason or is injured and JT has little value THEN Ballard wouldn't use the tag.   BFD.   
 

I know this post is long but I’d like to address an argument that I see here every day, all day.   That all Taylor has to do is ball out for about a half a season and show he’s healthy and can play at the 2021 Taylor level and he’ll get his new contract.   
 

Here are my thoughts… 

 

1.   100 percent of the risk is on Taylor.  0.0 risk goes to the Colts. 
 

2.  Taylor has to hope he doesn’t get hurt again.  He has to hope the line is dramatically improved again.  He has hope the new OL coach can improve the OL to play cohesively again.  
 

3.   Doing all that, does Taylor get to know what kind of offer he’d be playing for?   What’s the pot of gold at the end of the audition?   Suppose they can’t even agree on the compensation?   Taylor should assume all the risk without knowing if there’s an offer he’d even agree to? 
 

4.   Ballard saying Taylor shouldn’t be worried about getting the tag simply because they haven’t used it before seems pretty disingenuous to me.  Lots of things are happening that have never happened under Ballard before, the team is completely in unchartered water right now.  I don’t see Taylor doing things based on trust.  That seems shattered and it certainly feels like it went sour a very long time ago and not just in late July when camp opened. 
 

I don’t read much here about the Taylor perspective.   Wanted to offer the above to see what discussion it might raise.    I look forward to your thoughts even though I suspect we will not agree much. 
 

Sorry this went so long.  Much to talk about. 

 

 

  NCF of yesteryear. Superb writing and analysis.

 Due to the injury probabilities, Taylor is just being wisely adamant to get fully guaranteed money before he steps back on the field. That money has a high probability of setting him and his tribe up for a better life. 

 He is one injury away from "sorry about your luck" come back anytime you know you will always be a Colt for life.

 THIS is what he can Trust. And he is fine going to whomever will do the best for the future for him and his. I am with him 100% on this business decision.

 If we were a SB contender and could afford to add a healthy Taylor I absolutely see Irsay pushing Ballard to go for it. We are not, and unfortunately for Taylor, Steichen can have a top offense without a great runner.

[RollerColt]

7 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I know some people don’t remember this, but for a number of years, Ballard did quarterly meetings with the media in-Season.   So he’d do one after week 4, 8, 12 and 16.    Then he’d do one at the combine and he’d do one at some point after the start of free agency and then pre-draft.  There’s seven meetings with the media we had in 17, 18, 19 and 20.  
 

The in-season meetings changed during the Wentz year in 21 when Ballard did one after week 8, and 16,  but not after week 4 or 12,  if I remember correctly.   The other out of season meetings continued.   And it got all blown to heck last year in-season as well.   
 

I have no idea what to expect this season?   There are all sorts of arguments either way, but my hunch would be for less access in-season, but I’d be happy to be wrong. 

Yep. I remember he was very open and available to the media his first years here. It was... unusual to see a GM provide so much insight. Not that I'm complaining. It was very interesting to see him be so candid about his process and how things work at the organizational level. 

 

I think he went out this week to say what he needed to say, and will leave it at that. I would love to hear from him perhaps mid-season, but I think it all depends on how well (or bad) the team is doing. 

[lester]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Let me ask you this….  If Nelson and Leonard and Smith had been drafted later than they were, and had the same careers,  and were due for contracts this year, do you think they would’ve been signed?   I do.   Ballard and Steichen would be calling them all fits in Steichen’s offense and Bradley’s defense.   It would be in the team’s best interest to sign them, so they would.   And we’d hear less about the 4-win season and the new coach as reasons for not signing players.  
 

Now you can point to Pittman and how that’s being handled.   I think Pitt is uncommonly mature and realizes he may not be a fit in Steichen’s offense long term.  So I believe he realizes his floor next Spring is roughly 3/54 and likely higher and if he doesn’t get it from the Colts he’ll get it from another team.  So he’s willing to bet on himself.  But he also plays a position less injury prone than RB. 
 

As for the free agent tag, I think Ballard is being pretty disingenuous.   Saying he’s never used it before isn’t saying all that much and then I believe he added it was wrong to assume he’d use it next spring.  (Audio was weak and I may have heard him wrong).  If Taylor still has value next spring, Ballard would use it if need be.   The only way he doesn’t use it is if Taylor plays, and plays poorly for whatever reason or is injured and JT has little value THEN Ballard wouldn't use the tag.   BFD.   
 

I know this post is long but I’d like to address an argument that I see here every day, all day.   That all Taylor has to do is ball out for about a half a season and show he’s healthy and can play at the 2021 Taylor level and he’ll get his new contract.   
 

Here are my thoughts… 

 

1.   100 percent of the risk is on Taylor.  0.0 risk goes to the Colts. 
 

2.  Taylor has to hope he doesn’t get hurt again.  He has to hope the line is dramatically improved again.  He has hope the new OL coach can improve the OL to play cohesively again.  
 

3.   Doing all that, does Taylor get to know what kind of offer he’d be playing for?   What’s the pot of gold at the end of the audition?   Suppose they can’t even agree on the compensation?   Taylor should assume all the risk without knowing if there’s an offer he’d even agree to? 
 

4.   Ballard saying Taylor shouldn’t be worried about getting the tag simply because they haven’t used it before seems pretty disingenuous to me.  Lots of things are happening that have never happened under Ballard before, the team is completely in unchartered water right now.  I don’t see Taylor doing things based on trust.  That seems shattered and it certainly feels like it went sour a very long time ago and not just in late July when camp opened. 
 

I don’t read much here about the Taylor perspective.   Wanted to offer the above to see what discussion it might raise.    I look forward to your thoughts even though I suspect we will not agree much. 
 

Sorry this went so long.  Much to talk about. 

 

1. The Colts already took the risk. They used scarce draft capital on Taylor and paid him a contract with no guarantees for themselves. If Taylor had NOT become an all pro in his 2nd season, could the Colts have decided to not pay him the contractually agreed amount? Could they have re-used the expired 2nd round pick on someone else? Silly, I know. No, they could not. Busts happen in the draft; its a real risk for the team. Of course they can cut the player later, but the contract obligations stay in force. That is what a contract is. The Colts took the risk on JT at the beginning. They don't owe him anything more than his agreed salary this year. He owes them his effort and performance for one more year.

 

2. If that is a part of his argument (and I agree with you that I think it is part of his argument), it is offensive. Jonathan Taylor has the same risk to his future earning as every single other player. That line he is concerned about, they have the same risk. The receivers, they have the same risk. The quarterbacks, they have the same risk. He is a running back, he might get hurt. That might end his career. So says the ten thousand before him who never made it. He is not special.

 

3. Taylor is no different than any other employee in the history of employees. Sure, he deserves to be led, managed, cared for, incentivized, and motivated to perform; just like the employees at my company or any one of us at our job. Rarely in the rest of the world, does that mean any one of us knows 'if I do this, I get that' - and then maybe we get to decide for ourselves how hard we work to get the reward? That is the mindset of an elite athlete in the most popular sportstainment endeavor in the world? One who is under contract who also has hungry youngsters lining up take his job? Is this how JT should think and how he should be measured? For real? 

 

4. I agree with you about trust, but not in the way you are implying. Taylor is the one who expects trust in return but is unwilling to demonstrate it of his own accord. Taylor wants the team to trust him about his abilities. In fact, his entire shtick, this whole episode, is a matter of trust. Trust him that his ankle is not a problem. Can't see it, just trust him. Trust him that he will perform throughout the period of his next contract too. New contract, same problem in the last year of that one? And the one after that. Trust him that he won't hold-in again if he gets close to the end of the new contract he wants.

 

There is very little the Colts could've or should've done differently. They are being victimized by Jonathan Taylor and Malki Kawa. Sure, the situation might benefit if Irsay was more as a silent party to the proceedings (but I'm not sure his motivation is this particular transaction more than being aimed at the broad NFL in general) but that is a different post. JT and his agent are bullying the Colts, in public; for the sole purpose of receiving more money than he has already agreed to. He owes the colts. They do not owe him.

[Superman]

20 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Let me ask you this….  If Nelson and Leonard and Smith had been drafted later than they were, and had the same careers,  and were due for contracts this year, do you think they would’ve been signed?   I do.   Ballard and Steichen would be calling them all fits in Steichen’s offense and Bradley’s defense.   It would be in the team’s best interest to sign them, so they would.   And we’d hear less about the 4-win season and the new coach as reasons for not signing players.  

 

I think Nelson and Smith are scheme neutral, so I don't think it would matter. They also don't play a position that's starting to be considered interchangeable.

 

Leonard, I'm not sure. There's a lot of unknown, and I would not be surprised if we have a new DC in 2024. And depending on how Leonard looks in 2023, he might not be back either. 

 

But I still think you're missing the point. If we take Ballard and Irsay at their word -- both of whom have said they want to re-sign Taylor -- the '4 wins' comment isn't simply about scheme fit. It's about expectations and changing the course of the franchise. If the foundation of our roster isn't able to do better than 4 wins, then lots of changes are on the way, maybe a significant reset of the roster. And in that case, maybe there are bigger problems than JT's next contract. As you mentioned, the Pittman situation speaks to all of this.

 

On top of that, JT wasn't healthy most of last season, and hasn't participated in team activities to this point, so a new contract for him is simply not on the table right now.

 

Quote

As for the free agent tag, I think Ballard is being pretty disingenuous.   Saying he’s never used it before isn’t saying all that much and then I believe he added it was wrong to assume he’d use it next spring.  (Audio was weak and I may have heard him wrong).  If Taylor still has value next spring, Ballard would use it if need be.   The only way he doesn’t use it is if Taylor plays, and plays poorly for whatever reason or is injured and JT has little value THEN Ballard wouldn't use the tag.   BFD.   

 

I don't think it's disingenuous. He's saying 'people just assume we'd use the tag, but we never have.' And what was unsaid is that they never have because they've almost always re-signed their top level players before they hit the market, which was/is still an option with JT. 

 

Quote

1.   100 percent of the risk is on Taylor.  0.0 risk goes to the Colts. 

 

And if the Colts sign Taylor without seeing him play after his ankle surgery, 100% of the risk is now on the Colts. How is that defensible?
 

I think I understand Taylor's perspective. I think the only real option he has to try to get his way is to hold out. All the optics aside, this is just a contract dispute, with some added questions about the player's health, and I don't necessarily fault him for any of it. But I think he has a losing hand, and I think he's played it on tilt all summer, and has nowhere else to go.

 

My big issue is with media painting the Colts like they've done something wrong. I think, aside from some ill-advised comments from Irsay, the Colts' handling of this has been textbook. It's just a tough situation, and while I can be sympathetic to JT's situation, I don't think the Colts are wrong for holding their ground.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I think Nelson and Smith are scheme neutral, so I don't think it would matter. They also don't play a position that's starting to be considered interchangeable.

 

Leonard, I'm not sure. There's a lot of unknown, and I would not be surprised if we have a new DC in 2024. And depending on how Leonard looks in 2023, he might not be back either. 

 

But I still think you're missing the point. If we take Ballard and Irsay at their word -- both of whom have said they want to re-sign Taylor -- the '4 wins' comment isn't simply about scheme fit. It's about expectations and changing the course of the franchise. If the foundation of our roster isn't able to do better than 4 wins, then lots of changes are on the way, maybe a significant reset of the roster. And in that case, maybe there are bigger problems than JT's next contract. As you mentioned, the Pittman situation speaks to all of this.

 

On top of that, JT wasn't healthy most of last season, and hasn't participated in team activities to this point, so a new contract for him is simply not on the table right now.

 

 

I don't think it's disingenuous. He's saying 'people just assume we'd use the tag, but we never have.' And what was unsaid is that they never have because they've almost always re-signed their top level players before they hit the market, which was/is still an option with JT. 

 

 

And if the Colts sign Taylor without seeing him play after his ankle surgery, 100% of the risk is now on the Colts. How is that defensible?
 

I think I understand Taylor's perspective. I think the only real option he has to try to get his way is to hold out. All the optics aside, this is just a contract dispute, with some added questions about the player's health, and I don't necessarily fault him for any of it. But I think he has a losing hand, and I think he's played it on tilt all summer, and has nowhere else to go.

 

My big issue is with media painting the Colts like they've done something wrong. I think, aside from some ill-advised comments from Irsay, the Colts' handling of this has been textbook. It's just a tough situation, and while I can be sympathetic to JT's situation, I don't think the Colts are wrong for holding their ground.

To be clear, I’ve never once said the Colts should sign Taylor in his current situation.    Not once.   But I have expressed my admiration for the outside the box thinking the Chargers used in dealing with Eckler.   They found a way to bridge the gap and their good faith effort seemed to work.  
 

You’d think the Colts would try something similar.   Perhaps throw in a bonus of $2.7m on top of his $4.3m salary.  Then offer some reasonable incentives, perhaps $2m more so there’s the possibility of making up to $9m in 2023.   So there would be an olive branch offer plus some shared risk on both sides to make nice.  
 

You’d think something like that would’ve leaked out if it had been made.   But so far, silence.   
 

I don’t know if you saw a post I just made, a stand alone that wasn't responding to anyone.   I said I don’t believe Saturday forced JT to play hurt.  As you know, Saturday was hailed as a near hero for protecting Shaq and telling him to shut it down in 22 so he wouldn’t risk further injury.   That said, I do believe Taylor thinks the team knows he played hurt throughout the season thru THREE ankle Injuries.  (Not the TWO injuries people think he had). So to do that and not even receive an offer of any kind from the team is, I believe, why there appears to be a serious breakdown in trust.   Taylor made sacrifices for the good of the team and he’s gotten all the standard lines….   4 wins…. New coaches…. New system….   Etc.   

 

The Colts have treated Taylor more like a JAG than as an important and valued member of the team. 

 

What you have tried to boil down to a simple contract dispute I believe is far more complicated.  I think you either ignore or play down the loss of trust issue.   I think Taylor might ultimately be willing to go elsewhere and take less just to get out of town. 
 

I appreciate that Ballard isn’t going to negotiate in the media.   But I don’t think this situation has been handled well.  Yes, I agree, Taylor has a bad hand and he hasn’t handled his end well.  But I think it goes both ways.  Again, I point to the Chargers.   It’s going to take some serious outside the box thinking here.   To me, there’s nothing standard or ordinary about this dispute.  And I don’t see it ending until Ballard or Irsay does something out of the ordinary.  
 

[Superman]

7 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I don’t know if you saw a post I just made, a stand alone that wasn't responding to anyone.   I said I don’t believe Saturday forced JT to play hurt.  As you know, Saturday was hailed as a near hero for protecting Shaq and telling him to shut it down in 22 so he wouldn’t risk further injury.   That said, I do believe Taylor thinks the team knows he played hurt throughout the season thru THREE ankle Injuries.  (Not the TWO injuries people think he had). So to do that and not even receive an offer of any kind from the team is, I believe, why there appears to be a serious breakdown in trust.   Taylor made sacrifices for the good of the team and he’s gotten all the standard lines….   4 wins…. New coaches…. New system….   Etc.   

 

The Colts have treated Taylor more like a JAG than as an important and valued member of the team. 

 

What you have tried to boil down to a simple contract dispute I believe is far more complicated.  I think you either ignore or play down the loss of trust issue.   I think Taylor might ultimately be willing to go elsewhere and take less just to get out of town. 

 

I don't buy this. I appreciate Taylor battling through injury last season, but that's part of the game. Saying that he made sacrifices for the team doesn't register with me on this topic. He tried to do his job, and I appreciate it, but if he was hurt then it's on him that he didn't make it clear that he wasn't ready to play. And trying to spin that situation into a way to guilt the team intro retroactively paying him because 2022 was difficult doesn't work for me.

 

As for the Ekeler thing, first difference is that he wasn't injured. Second thing is that he folded, and then arranged a Zoom to try to get the other RBs to carry this issue. 

 

I wouldn't totally mind the incentive approach here, but I do think it sets a dangerous precedent. And I think it would be a bad choice for a player who is apparently milking an injury. Even if I could be talked into sweetening JT's money for 2023, I wouldn't do it before he passed a physical and practices with the team. 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I don't buy this. I appreciate Taylor battling through injury last season, but that's part of the game. Saying that he made sacrifices for the team doesn't register with me on this topic. He tried to do his job, and I appreciate it, but if he was hurt then it's on him that he didn't make it clear that he wasn't ready to play. And trying to spin that situation into a way to guilt the team intro retroactively paying him because 2022 was difficult doesn't work for me.

 

As for the Ekeler thing, first difference is that he wasn't injured. Second thing is that he folded, and then arranged a Zoom to try to get the other RBs to carry this issue. 

 

I wouldn't totally mind the incentive approach here, but I do think it sets a dangerous precedent. And I think it would be a bad choice for a player who is apparently milking an injury. Even if I could be talked into sweetening JT's money for 2023, I wouldn't do it before he passed a physical and practices with the team. 

Ok….   I think it’s clear by now that we don’t see this the same way at all.   Not even a little.   What I find particularly odd for us, is that your responses to me feels like your takeaway from what I wrote isn’t remotely close to what I’d expect.   And you may feel the same about me.   In short, we’re not missing each other by a little,  I’m not saying it’s 5 and you think it’s 6….    I’m saying 5 and you’re saying rocks.  
We are on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon from each other.   We misunderstand each other completely.   On every level.   Very disappointing.   Rare for us.  
 

But I’m ready to call it a day.   So let’s punt and move on to something else.   Fair enough?  

[Dingus McGirt]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I don't buy this. I appreciate Taylor battling through injury last season, but that's part of the game. Saying that he made sacrifices for the team doesn't register with me on this topic. He tried to do his job, and I appreciate it, but if he was hurt then it's on him that he didn't make it clear that he wasn't ready to play. And trying to spin that situation into a way to guilt the team intro retroactively paying him because 2022 was difficult doesn't work for me.

 

As for the Ekeler thing, first difference is that he wasn't injured. Second thing is that he folded, and then arranged a Zoom to try to get the other RBs to carry this issue. 

 

I wouldn't totally mind the incentive approach here, but I do think it sets a dangerous precedent. And I think it would be a bad choice for a player who is apparently milking an injury. Even if I could be talked into sweetening JT's money for 2023, I wouldn't do it before he passed a physical and practices with the team. 

I love this.  Perhaps the agent should change his slogan from "First Round Money" to "Come Over and Milk it with Malki."

[compuls1v3]

Not sure if someone posted this already, so I apologize, but I'm re-watching the press conference, and found something that I liked as well.  A reported tried to slam the Colts for their interest in Kareem Hunt, and Chris shut him down about their track recording being pretty good.  It was fun to watch!

[compuls1v3]

On 9/1/2023 at 1:39 AM, NewColtsFan said:

3.   Doing all that, does Taylor get to know what kind of offer he’d be playing for?   What’s the pot of gold at the end of the audition?   Suppose they can’t even agree on the compensation?   Taylor should assume all the risk without knowing if there’s an offer he’d even agree to? 
 

4.   Ballard saying Taylor shouldn’t be worried about getting the tag simply because they haven’t used it before seems pretty disingenuous to me.  Lots of things are happening that have never happened under Ballard before, the team is completely in unchartered water right now.  I don’t see Taylor doing things based on trust.  That seems shattered and it certainly feels like it went sour a very long time ago and not just in late July when camp opened. 
 

I don’t read much here about the Taylor perspective.   Wanted to offer the above to see what discussion it might raise.    I look forward to your thoughts even though I suspect we will not agree much. 
 

Sorry this went so long.  Much to talk about. 

Hey NCF, I know you were talking to someone else, but I wanted your take on this.  Near 12:33 in the interview, Ballard talks about the highlighted text.  But I don't think he states Taylor shouldn't be worried about the tag.  He explicitly states it's a "tool" and from what I gather they would use it if necessary.  Then he goes on to say he doesn't want to say something not true, and doesn't want to lead Jonathan down a path where he can call Ballard a liar.  Are we hearing two different things?

[NewColtsFan]

6 minutes ago, compuls1v3 said:

Hey NCF, I know you were talking to someone else, but I wanted your take on this.  Near 12:33 in the interview, Ballard talks about the highlighted text.  But I don't think he states Taylor shouldn't be worried about the tag.  He explicitly states it's a "tool" and from what I gather they would use it if necessary.  Then he goes on to say he doesn't want to say something not true, and doesn't want to lead Jonathan down a path where he can call Ballard a liar.  Are we hearing two different things?

No….  I think the audio on the version I heard wasn’t great.   So I may have mis-heard.    But clearly getting tagged is a serious issue for Taylor and I’m not sure Ballard’s answer is going to make Taylor or his agent feel any better. 
 

My previous post was offered in the spirit of finding some movement that might help both sides.   Frankly I was surprised when it got dismissed by Superman.  Agree or disagree, you’re always welcome to chime in.   Your input is welcome.   

[Superman]

9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Ok….   I think it’s clear by now that we don’t see this the same way at all.   Not even a little.   What I find particularly odd for us, is that your responses to me feels like your takeaway from what I wrote isn’t remotely close to what I’d expect.   And you may feel the same about me.   In short, we’re not missing each other by a little,  I’m not saying it’s 5 and you think it’s 6….    I’m saying 5 and you’re saying rocks.  
We are on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon from each other.   We misunderstand each other completely.   On every level.   Very disappointing.   Rare for us.  
 

But I’m ready to call it a day.   So let’s punt and move on to something else.   Fair enough?  

 

I guess. But I think the only thing of substance that we disagree on is the way the media is covering it.

 

Neither of us thinks the Colts should cave to JT's demands. Neither of us thinks the Colts forced JT to play injured. Neither of us thinks JT is a greedy jerk that should be run out of town. We'd both be okay with the two sides working out a compromise for 2023, although maybe you're more eager to see that happen than I am.

 

And I think you're a little more concerned with the relationship between the two sides than I am, but that's probably because I think JT's side is grasping at straws to gain some leverage, primarily by making the team look bad. I think JT wants a new contract, and if the Colts come to the table with an offer, they'll suddenly start finding solutions to the relationship problems.

 

All the other stuff is minutiae. Is that fair?

[Dark Superman]

I'll give a ton of credit to the media for finally pushing Ballard and asking him the tough questions.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

16 hours ago, compuls1v3 said:

Not sure if someone posted this already, so I apologize, but I'm re-watching the press conference, and found something that I liked as well.  A reported tried to slam the Colts for their interest in Kareem Hunt, and Chris shut him down about their track recording being pretty good.  It was fun to watch!

I think that was Kevin Bowen.

[lollygagger8]

On 8/31/2023 at 12:12 PM, Colt.45 said:

 

Holder's given the public more on JTs side than anyone else, is that not insider info? 

Holder (and Mike Chappell) tend to get exclusives from Irsay, is that not insider info?

 

Why is Holder getting pelted for poking at Ballard's faulty logic? Ballard brought up winning 4 games so it's fair to ask what happens if you win 4 games again, how is that not a logical question to follow up with? 

 

You dont have to look too far on these pages to see folks complaining about the 'soft' Indy media. Now they're trying to hold the GMs feet to the fire based on his own comments, and folks are talking as if Holder (and Boyd and whoever else) are carrying water for the player and his agent. Odd.

 

If you want to talk Xs and Os and Holder's knowledge of the game, then yeah i'd agree, I actively flee from his analysis, he parrots others talking points and it isnt his strong suit but attacking a journo for doing his/her job seems really unfair. Where else are you (and other Colts fans) expecting to get reporting that you crave from? The national media? Good luck. 

 

*Bob Kravitz was let go by the Athletic IIRC. 

 

 

This isn't specific to Holder's JT's ques. He's been someone who provides more speculation than facts for quote some time. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

2 hours ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

This isn't specific to Holder's JT's ques. He's been someone who provides more speculation than facts for quote some time. 

I think he is good at making it sound like speculation when he has been told not to say something.  So when he seems to be speculating ears should go up.