Trade Deadline (MERGE)

[jimmy g]

11 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The fact is Ballard either low-balled an offer, wasn't interested in Rasul Douglas, or didn't match the Bills offer (where we had a higher 3rd rounder). I'm not saying I know which one. I'm saying it was one of the three though. That's a fact. If it wasn't, we'd have Rasul Douglas on the Colts right now. It is a fact he was for trade as the Bills traded for him. It is a fact that the Bills traded a 3rd round pick for Rasul and a 5th round pick. It is a fact that the Colts are a worse team than the Bills and our third round pick is higher than theirs. Therefore, it's a fact that if we made the same offer, the Packers would have accepted our offer instead because they would have moved up around 10-12 extra spots in the third round for doing absolutely nothing besides choosing us over the Bills.

 

The bottom line is that this was a value trade we could have done. It was against the grain as we weren't competing. However, Douglas had 1 1/2 years left on his contract, and we didn't have to re-sign him immediately. Ballard missed the mark here and didn't fill a weakness at a good price. 

I’d be fine with most of what you say here IF you presented it as what you believe you would do in that scenario. But it’s total B.S. when you add that the things you present happened as Fact. And you can’t prove that a ‘Better Deal’ would be accepted over a ‘worse deal’.  Maybe there are other reasons, like personalities Or something?

 

 Relax, come off the high horse and just post it as something you would have done, and move on.  We’re all fans, we pretty much all want better players, but in the end- they get paid to do this, and we don’t.  It’s entertainment, nothing more.  We can guess what may happen behind the scenes, but none of us can guarantee things are Facts.

[w87r]

Presents all possible options.

 

1 of these for sure happened....

 

Thanks Mr Obvious.

[Yoshinator]

Just now, w87r said:

Presents all possible options.

 

1 of these for sure happened....

 

Thanks Mr Obvious.

If you're talking to me, I'm trying to cover all my bases and not leaving any possible loophole to defend Ballard in this situation. The Ballard defenders will find any excuse to pick me apart for being an armchair GM, so I have to present this perfectly. It was a mistake by Ballard, and he missed an opportunity. I don't think he should get a pass for it. Guaranteed opportunity to help fix the secondary and we passed on it. 

[jimmy g]

5 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

If you're talking to me, I'm trying to cover all my bases and not leaving any possible loophole to defend Ballard in this situation. The Ballard defenders will find any excuse to pick me apart for being an armchair GM, so I have to present this perfectly. It was a mistake by Ballard, and he missed an opportunity. I don't think he should get a pass for it. Guaranteed opportunity to help fix the secondary and we passed on it. 

I wasn’t picking on you because of Ballard. I was picking on you because you presented it as if things happened as you guaranteed they had- they HAD to happen as you presented, and the kid would now have to be a Colt.  That’s nothing but supposition.

 

I don’t care either way. I just pointed out that you’re making it up…

[Yoshinator]

Just now, jimmy g said:

I wasn’t picking on you because of Ballard. I was picking on you because you presented it as if things happened as you guaranteed they had- they HAD to happen as you presented, and the kid would now have to be a Colt.  That’s nothing but supposition.

One of those three things had to happen (lowball offer, no interest, not matching the bills offer). What am I missing here? Unless there's some animosity between Ballard and the Packers GM (which I would want proof on), those are the only three things that could explain why we didn't get Douglas. It could be as easy as no interest. That would be a mistake as nobody better is available for a reduced price in a buyers' market at the trade deadline. If we're lowballing, then Ballard is being cheap. Same if he didn't match the Bills offer. In any of those three cases. Ballard made a mistake. If you think there's another reason, I'd love to hear it. I covered every base here. If we match the Bills offer, he's ours as there's no reason the Packers would take the Bills 3rd rounder over ours. I explained the whole situation. I'm not wrong. You may not like the arrogant way I'm presenting the facts, but it's still true. I laid it out the right way. 

 

Things like this add up, and I'm tired of Ballard's conservative nature. You don't want to sell, fine, then help the team. I can put two and two together, and when you can see how cheap he is to the point where he won't trade down from a 3rd to a 5th to get a solid CB to fill our biggest weakness for two years, then there deserves to be criticism. Ballard is a bad GM. That's my opinion and I hope people that are casuals figure this out very soon in the fanbase as soon as possible.

[jimmy g]

2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

One of those three things had to happen (lowball offer, no interest, not matching the bills offer). What am I missing here? Unless there's some animosity between Ballard and the Packers GM (which I would want proof on), those are the only three things that could explain why we didn't get Douglas. It could be as easy as no interest. That would be a mistake as nobody better is available for a reduced price in a buyers' market at the trade deadline. If we're lowballing, then Ballard is being cheap. Same if he didn't match the Bills offer. In any of those three cases. Ballard made a mistake. If you think there's another reason, I'd love to hear it. I covered every base here. If we match the Bills offer, he's ours as there's no reason the Packers would take the Bills 3rd rounder over ours. I explained the whole situation. I'm not wrong. You may not like the arrogant way I'm presenting the facts, but it's still true. I laid it out the right way. 

 

Things like this add up, and I'm tired of Ballard's conservative nature. You don't want to sell, fine, then help the team. I can put two and two together, and when you can see how cheap he is to the point where he won't trade down from a 3rd to a 5th to get a solid CB to fill our biggest weakness for two years, then there deserves to be criticism. Ballard is a bad GM. That's my opinion and I hope people that are casuals figure this out very soon in the fanbase as soon as possible.

Besides the original arrogance (which is why I pointed it out), you can’t just assume that our Better Offer, or our probably finishing further up the draft order HAD to be accepted over some other teams offer. Yes, it probably would be as conventional wisdom- but it’s never guaranteed.  I.E. my Wife and I recently went car shopping. I found what I thought was an interesting deal.  She, on the other hand, would NOT buy the car from that salesman or dealer if it meant walking.  Some GMs may not want to help Ballard or the Colts. Maybe some players would threaten to not play here?  Your scenario sounds reasonable- but NEVER Assume or guarantee unless you were a witness….

[w87r]

Just now, Jared Cisneros said:

If you're talking to me, I'm trying to cover all my bases and not leaving any possible loophole to defend Ballard in this situation. The Ballard defenders will find any excuse to pick me apart for being an armchair GM, so I have to present this perfectly. It was a mistake by Ballard, and he missed an opportunity. I don't think he should get a pass for it. Guaranteed opportunity to help fix the secondary and we passed on it. 

 

Ballard doesn't need defended from you or anyone else. He will be back next year, not even a question about it, no matter how many of you choose to continue to complain consistently, making the forum almost intolerable, rather than actually just supporting your team, in what was supposed to be a developmental year from the jump.

 

 

Bottom line is we have a team that lost its QB for the season, top 3 CBs, top rated DT for 6 games, been without starting Tackles over last 5 game stretch, top RB for first 4 weeks, #1 Center in football for 2 weeks, and yet somehow still be in every game competing. How is that happening....?

 

 

In a season where most ruled the Colts out before it started , they legitimately could be 7-1/6-2 right now, but that's not because there is talent on the team, right? If those games happened to flip the other way and we were sitting there at 6-2, would you still have this same energy? Doubt it.  So some bad officiating in 1 game and a couple plays in 2 other games changes the whole conversation? 

 

 

The whining around here is ridiculous. Try supporting the team it's a much more fulfilling experience, as opposed to constantly bashing them.

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, jimmy g said:

Besides the original arrogance (which is why I pointed it out), you can’t just assume that our Better Offer, or our probably finishing further up the draft order HAD to be accepted over some other teams offer. Yes, it probably would be as conventional wisdom- but it’s never guaranteed.  I.E. my Wife and I recently went car shopping. I found what I thought was an interesting deal.  She, on the other hand, would NOT buy the car from that salesman or dealer if it meant walking.  Some GMs may not want to help Ballard or the Colts. Maybe some players would threaten to not play here?  Your scenario sounds reasonable- but NEVER Assume or guarantee unless you were a witness….

We aren't even in the same conference as GB. If there's an issue between GB and IND, then we must have said something to upset them and that's probably on Irsay or Ballard (obviously this is hypothetical). If Rasul Douglas threatened not to play for the Colts, then it would have been leaked by a major source. I don't buy that unless there's proof. I'm open to both of these scenarios, but they are so unlikely that I would need proof as you are grasping at straws here. 

 

As far as the 3rd rounder goes, we are behind the Bills by two games and they are a much better team than us. There is no GM in the league that thinks otherwise. Even Ballard would admit the Bills are better than us. If it's close, then maybe they make an unusual decision, but the Bills have Josh Allen at QB. We have Gardner Minshew. Their team is better than ours. No GM is taking the Bills pick over ours if that opportunity was there.

 

The most likely scenario is that we had no interest and Ballard just wanted to stand pat. There was some reported interest in Moss and we didn't get high enough offers (which I still would have traded him even for a lower offer). I'm just discussing all the possible scenarios, and trying to cover everything that happened with Rasul Douglas so no one can say we don't know. I can narrow it to three things that made us not get him, and explain why it's true for all three. I wasn't there, but I know enough without seeing it firsthand.

[jimmy g]

4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I wasn't there, but I know enough without seeing it firsthand.

That was the crux of my post.  Just say “this is what I would have done”, or “I don’t get it why this wasn’t done”.  In your posts, you said this HAD to have happened, or you guaranteed this.  Comes across like you think you should be the Colts GM, and chases away readers of your posts.  Nite, I’m late for bed….

[Yoshinator]

21 minutes ago, w87r said:

 

Ballard doesn't need defended from you or anyone else. He will be back next year, not even a question about it, no matter how many of you choose to continue to complain consistently, making the forum almost intolerable, rather than actually just supporting your team, in what was supposed to be a developmental year from the jump.

 

 

Bottom line is we have a team that lost its QB for the season, top 3 CBs, top rated DT for 6 games, been without starting Tackles over last 5 game stretch, top RB for first 4 weeks, #1 Center in football for 2 weeks, and yet somehow still be in every game competing. How is that happening....?

 

 

In a season where most ruled the Colts out before it started , they legitimately could be 7-1/6-2 right now, but that's not because there is talent on the team, right? If those games happened to flip the other way and we were sitting there at 6-2, would you still have this same energy? Doubt it.  So some bad officiating in 1 game and a couple plays in 2 other games changes the whole conversation? 

 

 

The whining around here is ridiculous. Try supporting the team it's a much more fulfilling experience, as opposed to constantly bashing them.

We wouldn't be 6-2 or 7-1 though. You're 1.) assuming Richardson would dominate like Minshew on the offense for that short stretch of games. 2.) We have the worst defense in the NFL. Injuries happen. Coulda woulda shoulda. 3.) Anthony Richardson is out for the year. It's kind of hard to care like Minshew is as important as him and the games mean the same thing. 4.) If Ballard was aggressive in FA and trades, we'd have a good enough defense to possibly contend. This defense was never good. It just got horrible when there were injuries and grover got suspended. 

 

Funny you mention top 3 CBs get hurt, Ballard has a chance to fix that somewhat, he passes on Rasul Douglas, and it's somehow ok. You are against tanking, yet you defend this. I'm not supporting stupidity. When Ballard can make a decision that's more intelligent than a decision a fan will make, I will support him. When he can admit his mistakes and adapt, I will support him. When he can start adding players in FA and trades like a normal GM, I will support him. When he can take positions seriously like WR and CB, I will support him.

 

Ballard is the quintessential Madden GM. He does the same strategy I do on Madden where I sign average to below-average FAs and build through the draft. The difference is I can pull that off in Madden because it's not real life. Ballard can't because all the other GMs are using FA and trades along with the draft to build their teams, and a bunch of them are just as good or better than Ballard in the draft. 

 

Ballard is 48-57-1 as a GM. 1 playoff win, no divisional wins. I've been patient with him. There's always a convenient excuse for Ballard. Maybe if the rest of the team was good, but it's not. The defense is terrible, and we have no idea if richardson is the guy yet and won't know more until next year. The offense is good with minshew, but he's not a franchise qb. We don't build the team fast enough just through the draft. When we finally fix a weakness, two new ones appear. Maybe if he built through FA and trades as well, we'd have a better team. He won't besides average guys on cheap contracts though, and we're reliant to hit on more draft picks than anyone in the league to keep up.

[w87r]

4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

We wouldn't be 6-2 or 7-1 though.

6-2 isn't based on any injury situation playing out different.

 

It is literally what we could easily be with what we have had and the injuries we had to deal with.

 

Bad officiating in the Browns game and a couple plays or different coaching decisions in the Saints or Rams game and that is 6 wins itself. With the same roster you are complaining about.

 

Not even including week 1 where we had a good chance to win it that game too.

 

 

Anyway, I'm not arguing about it. I have better things to do than have repetitive arguments with the same old usual suspects. Have fun complaining about Ballard for the next 15 months(end of next season), because he isn't going anywhere. I guess you have something to look forward to.

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

Well, might as well see if a playoff team can offer us a high 1st rounder for Pittman, right? Another 1st rounder would be nice. But I am dreaming though, Pittman ain't A J Brown or Adams or Tyreek Hill, the best is a late 2nd rounder.

 

If a playoff team gave you a late 2nd rounder and threw in an additional 5th rounder for Pittman, would you bite? Honest question for folks. This is like the Leonard Williams trade for the Seahawks.

 

@Superman @stitches @2006Coltsbestever @Solid84

No. I would re-sign Pittman.

[r a y s k i]

1 hour ago, w87r said:

 

Ballard doesn't need defended from you or anyone else. He will be back next year, not even a question about it, no matter how many of you choose to continue to complain consistently, making the forum almost intolerable, rather than actually just supporting your team, in what was supposed to be a developmental year from the jump.

 

 

 

So true.

[2006Coltsbestever]

8 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

John Lynch took over the 49ers in 2017. Same year Ballard took over the Colts. So their journeys are trajectories are comparable. Ballard did very little and Lynch built a dominant team.

Lynch has built a good roster, not dominant. They haven't won a SB and won't without a franchise QB. I not 100% sold on Brock Purdy holding up the Lombardi. He was great at times for a 10 game stretch but the last 3 weeks, not impressed at all.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Lynch has built a good roster, not dominant. They haven't won a SB and won't without a franchise QB. I not 100% sold on Brock Purdy holding up the Lombardi. He was great at times for a 10 game stretch but the last weeks, not impressed at all.

The team is dominant, the QB situation is ehhh. Purdy isn't elite, but he's a middle-of-the-road QB for being the last pick in the draft. The 49ers still made a SB under Lynch though. If we make a SB, I will be very happy. That seems like an eternity away though. 

[r a y s k i]

2 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

They didn’t struggle too they chose not too.  Polian made it know he didn’t believe in free agency in most cases.  He preferred to use his money to keep their own.  Ballard is the same mold.  Grigson was more willing to dip into free agency and often gave out big contracts that didn’t work out but he had no problem signing players in free agency.

Thats just the matter of perspective. I don't believe Ballard is the same mold, he is very much willing, to a certain financial extent. He just isn't willing to jeopardise our financial sheet for someone who doesn't fit us in every possible way, athleticism etc etc and especially personality wise. 

 

As far as Grigson goes, he had no problem to spend for sure, but that elite level of talent that most complain about not spending on, never was on the table and thats my point. There is a hidden tax on our team due to location if you will. He spent a lot, on average talent. Most he signed were twilight veterans, not difference makers people point out we should have gone after all the time w Ballard. 

 

The Grigson years are still upsetting lol

[2006Coltsbestever]

8 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The team is dominant, the QB situation is ehhh. Purdy isn't elite, but he's a middle-of-the-road QB for being the last pick in the draft. The 49ers still made a SB under Lynch though. If we make a SB, I will be very happy. That seems like an eternity away though. 

That is the problem though, without a very good or great QB what is the point of building a good or great roster. They won't win a SB even doing it Lynch's way. Unless you have a defense like the 85 Bears or 2000 Ravens, it will never work. 49ers have a good defense but not like that.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

8 hours ago, Dobbinblitz said:

Ballard concluded that there just was not anyone available with a high enough RAS to trade for.

 

AND OR potential draftees would have higher RAS scores than the players traded for. 

Who needs scouts(and YouTube) when you have RAS? 

 

Truth is mid to late round draftees make rookie minimum, less than the probable vet that would be available in trade. 

When a team isn't in "win mode" it's about the Benjamins. 

[Yoshinator]

10 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

That is the problem though, without a very good or great QB what is the point of building a good or great roster. They won't win a SB even doing it Lynch's way. Unless you have a defense like the 85 Bears or 2000 Ravens, it will never work. 49ers have a good defense but not like that.

A good QB can win a SB around a great team. SF's team is elite besides the QB. They will go as far as Purdy will take them this year. The 49ers defense isn't historically elite, but it's top 5 this year. The offense is very solid. If Purdy is healthy, they are a top 3 team in the NFC with the Eagles and Cowboys. 

 

The problem is that our team isn't anywhere near elite in any position besides maybe RB. We are also in a harder conference. Literally our only hope is that Anthony Richardson becomes elite like Mahomes and carries us to a SB. Even then, the Colts are much less talented than the Chiefs. We have to take every little edge we can. We don't do much in FA, we don't trade much, we can't build a team solely through the draft. This isn't Madden. No team can, even the Ravens can't when they have compensatory picks. 

 

The 49ers are getting creative. Our creativity was to get Rasul Douglas for two years and buy in a buyers market where players were cheaper than usual. You probably think I overreacted in my posts, but this conservative GMing is why we will never do anything meaningful as a team.

[GoColts8818]

13 minutes ago, r a y s k i said:

Thats just the matter of perspective. I don't believe Ballard is the same mold, he is very much willing, to a certain financial extent. He just isn't willing to jeopardise our financial sheet for someone who doesn't fit us in every possible way, athleticism etc etc and especially personality wise. 

 

As far as Grigson goes, he had no problem to spend for sure, but that elite level of talent that most complain about not spending on, never was on the table and thats my point. There is a hidden tax on our team due to location if you will. He spent a lot, on average talent. Most he signed were twilight veterans, not difference makers people point out we should have gone after all the time w Ballard. 

 

The Grigson years are still upsetting lol

No there isn’t.  Small market NFL teams sign stars all the time.  If you pay players they will come.  It’s part of the big secret to the NFL success, parody thanks to the salary cap that lets any team sign just about any player they want if they are willing to pony up the money for them.  
 

As for Ballard he’s publicly said he believes in paying his own and that he’s not big splash guy in free agency.  If Ballard wanted to be a big splash guy he could be but that’s not who he is.  He prefers to spend his money on his guys he’s drafted.  
 

Grigson would spend but spent it on the wrong guys.  Remember him talking Frank Gore out of going to Philly to come here and singing Andre Johnson in moves that were supposed to lead to a championship?  He also signed the Jackson guy from the Browns who was sought after when he was released and Landry who was sought after at the time that just blew up in his face.  
 

Even the rare times Polian would dip into free agency he landed star players when he went after them.  The two biggest examples being AV and Corey Simon.  

[GoColts8818]

3 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

If you're talking to me, I'm trying to cover all my bases and not leaving any possible loophole to defend Ballard in this situation. The Ballard defenders will find any excuse to pick me apart for being an armchair GM, so I have to present this perfectly. It was a mistake by Ballard, and he missed an opportunity. I don't think he should get a pass for it. Guaranteed opportunity to help fix the secondary and we passed on it. 

Saying you weren’t in the room so you don’t know for a fact what happened doesn’t make one a Ballard defender.  No one going after you for that cares if you attack Ballard.  In fact at least one person said if you want to say hey I don’t like the way Ballard did this go a head and say that.  You think it was a mistake that’s perfectly valid opinion to have.  However, it’s just that an opinion not a fact.  

[r a y s k i]

2 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

No there isn’t.  Small market NFL teams sign stars all the time.  If you pay players they will come.  It’s part of the big secret to the NFL success, parody thanks to the salary cap that lets any team sign just about any player they want if they are willing to pony up the money for them.  
 

As for Ballard he’s publicly said he believes in paying his own and that he’s not big splash guy in free agency.  If Ballard wanted to be a big splash guy he could be but that’s not who he is.  He prefers to spend his money on his guys he’s drafted.  
 

Grigson would spend but spent it on the wrong guys.  Remember him talking Frank Gore out of going to Philly to come here and singing Andre Johnson in moves that were supposed to lead to a championship?  He also signed the Jackson guy from the Browns who was sought after when he was released and Landry who was sought after at the time that just blew up in his face.  
 

Even the rare times Polian would dip into free agency he landed star players when he went after them.  The two biggest examples being AV and Corey Simon.  

I just don't believe any of those guys were "star" prime of their career players. 

As much as I loved having Gore and he was somewhat productive for us, a 32 year old running back just wasn't a star signing imo. Probably the biggest name as far as FA signing of the past 30 years and thats telling. Same with Johnson, he requested a trade from Texas and couldn't find anyone willing to give up a pick for him. Twilight of their career signings.

My comments are on the state of some of the fans who expect us to sign 25 year old studs, which just doesn't happen for us.

Anyway, we can look at the same thing from different perspectives. I just think location matters to athletes and Indy isn't a sexy one and never has been and it's definitely a factor. Anyway, that's as much as I can say about this topic without  repeating myself. 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

A good QB can win a SB around a great team. SF's team is elite besides the QB. They will go as far as Purdy will take them this year. The 49ers defense isn't historically elite, but it's top 5 this year. The offense is very solid. If Purdy is healthy, they are a top 3 team in the NFC with the Eagles and Cowboys. 

 

The problem is that our team isn't anywhere near elite in any position besides maybe RB. We are also in a harder conference. Literally our only hope is that Anthony Richardson becomes elite like Mahomes and carries us to a SB. Even then, the Colts are much less talented than the Chiefs. We have to take every little edge we can. We don't do much in FA, we don't trade much, we can't build a team solely through the draft. This isn't Madden. No team can, even the Ravens can't when they have compensatory picks. 

 

The 49ers are getting creative. Our creativity was to get Rasul Douglas for two years and buy in a buyers market where players were cheaper than usual. You probably think I overreacted in my posts, but this conservative GMing is why we will never do anything meaningful as a team.

 

I'll add to your if AR5 does or doesn't become elite.

My opinion is '23 QB class is good and our division got three of them.  If AR5 only progresses to being good instead of elite, the colts may wind up as having the least best QB in the division.... this of course is if Levis first game wasn't A anomaly. 

And like you said, the colts don't add top players through FA or trade..

So it may be up to a only good but not elite QB to carry the colts over division rivals who may have superior rosters AND QB's. 

 

Heaven help AR5 to become the next Unitas, Bert Jones, Peyton Manning 

 

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

I'll add to your if AR5 does or doesn't become elite.

My opinion is '23 QB class is good and our division got three of them.  If AR5 only progresses to being good instead of elite, the colts may wind up as having the least best QB in the division.... this of course is if Levis first game wasn't A anomaly. 

And like you said, the colts don't add top players through FA or trade..

So it may be up to a only good but not elite QB to carry the colts over division rivals who may have superior rosters AND QB's. 

 

Heaven help AR5 to become the next Unitas, Bert Jones, Peyton Manning 

 

Yep. Even if Richardson is as good as Mahomes it will still be a challenge to make and win the SB because of the quality of the AFC, and the poor quality of the team. We're going to have to put up 40 a game to win consistently. People that don't want to tank this year are crazy with Minshew at QB. I'm beginning to get that feeling as well. We may have the 3rd best QB from this class in the division if Levis is for real. He may not be, but that's a scary debut considering he's on the Titans. Hopkins looked like the Hopkins of old and he injected new life into that Titans team. That's what we are dreaming Richardson can do. 

 

At the very least, we need to tank this year, get a top 5 pick, and draft a lot of defense. Trade down a couple times if needed. I'd say get 3 picks in the first 3 rounds on defense and 2 on offense. A trade down could get an extra 2nd and 3rd this year while still having a high pick in the first round if we have a top 5 pick. If we don't do anything in FA and trades, we have to hit a grand slam in the draft.

[VikingsFanInChennai]

3 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The fact is Ballard either low-balled an offer, wasn't interested in Rasul Douglas, or didn't match the Bills offer (where we had a higher 3rd rounder). I'm not saying I know which one. I'm saying it was one of the three though. That's a fact. If it wasn't, we'd have Rasul Douglas on the Colts right now. It is a fact he was for trade as the Bills traded for him. It is a fact that the Bills traded a 3rd round pick for Rasul and a 5th round pick. It is a fact that the Colts are a worse team than the Bills and our third round pick is higher than theirs. Therefore, it's a fact that if we made the same offer, the Packers would have accepted our offer instead because they would have moved up around 10-12 extra spots in the third round for doing absolutely nothing besides choosing us over the Bills.

 

The bottom line is that this was a value trade we could have done. It was against the grain as we weren't competing. However, Douglas had 1 1/2 years left on his contract, and we didn't have to re-sign him immediately. Ballard missed the mark here and didn't fill a weakness at a good price. 

Agreed.

 

Vikings could've done the deal too, but Packers might have hesitated trading to a divisional rival. But, there's no such worries for Colts, and they'd have better draft order than Colts.

 

I think Ballard, if he'd inquired at all, he'd Not have wanted to part with a 3rd round pick.

 

Bills made a very clever move for themselves, though they had to give up a day 2 draft pick.

 

5 hours ago, Zoltan said:

One thing I don't get is teams that do what the Commanders did, trading good players like Sweat and Young for low draft picks. To me it just looks like a lose-lose situation, you lose a starter and you get a draft pick that you'll get a player that may be a rotational player. Its hard to become a better team if you don't keep your good players.

Commanders are in unique situation. They have a new owner, so they or their GM gets the luxury to clean house, gather draft picks and build the roster the way he wants. It's not uncommon for GM under new owner or newly hired GM to do so. 

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

Agreed.

 

Vikings could've done the deal too, but Packers might have hesitated trading to a divisional rival. But, there's no such worries for Colts, and they'd have better draft order than Colts.

 

I think Ballard, if he'd inquired at all, he'd Not have wanted to part with a 3rd round pick.

 

Bills made a very clever move for themselves, though they had to give up a day 2 draft pick.

 

Commanders are in unique situation. They have a new owner, so they or their GM gets the luxury to clean house, gather draft picks and build the roster the way he wants. It's not uncommon for GM under new owner or newly hired GM to do so. 

Yep. Colts and Bills are both in the AFC, so there's equal opportunity away from the Packers where they won't face him that much. 

 

It came down to either Ballard wasn't interested (which is the most likely scenario), or he's just cheap (he didn't want to give up the 3rd (which means he didn't want to match the Bills or he gave a lowball offer or both)). I'm just a mixture of frustrated and disinterested and angry at this point. Something like this shouldn't be the boiling point for me, but it's a combination of an inept GM with his conservative ways combined with the fact that said GM can't make a decision whether to buy or sell. We get offers for Moss, but they aren't high enough so we hold on to him even though he's a FA at the end of the year. Rasul Douglas is available at a discount, but we aren't buyers so we aren't going to adapt to a buyers' market and fill a weakness. This team has no direction and no excitement, and Ballard can't make a decision either way. We're just stuck as a mediocre team until next year when we have to hope Richardson can develop again. Very frustrating.

[NFLfan]

14 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

 

 

Was he traded? I am a big fan of his. I know that the Bears would not trade within the division but I would have loved trading for Johnson.

4 hours ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

Vikings could've done the deal too, but Packers might have hesitated trading to a divisional rival. But, there's no such worries for Colts, and they'd have better draft order than Colts.

 

 

I would have preferred Johnson.

[cdgacoltsfan]

5 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Yep. Colts and Bills are both in the AFC, so there's equal opportunity away from the Packers where they won't face him that much. 

 

It came down to either Ballard wasn't interested (which is the most likely scenario), or he's just cheap (he didn't want to give up the 3rd (which means he didn't want to match the Bills or he gave a lowball offer or both)). I'm just a mixture of frustrated and disinterested and angry at this point. Something like this shouldn't be the boiling point for me, but it's a combination of an inept GM with his conservative ways combined with the fact that said GM can't make a decision whether to buy or sell. We get offers for Moss, but they aren't high enough so we hold on to him even though he's a FA at the end of the year. Rasul Douglas is available at a discount, but we aren't buyers so we aren't going to adapt to a buyers' market and fill a weakness. This team has no direction and no excitement, and Ballard can't make a decision either way. We're just stuck as a mediocre team until next year when we have to hope Richardson can develop again. Very frustrating.

[smittywerb]

After seeing who got moved, I’m actually ok with standing pat.  Young didn’t want to resign right away with whatever team he was going in order to test the FA market so I understand that.  Rethinking Scary Terry, he is 28 so he’s a little up in age and will be when our QB and team starts to come on.  Rasual Douglas, same thing. 
 

so with that said, I’m ok.  Now come the off-season, Mr. Ballard better offer chase young a lot of money because that would instantly fill a need and save us having to find someone in the draft.

 

Hopefully Ballard looks to sign a corner in free agency soon we can at least slow the bleeding this year.  It’s clear this team is in a semi-rebuild so if we do go for someone, it’s going to be someone younger.  We’re the 3rd youngest team in the league and for sustained success the talent will have to be able to stick around with AR.  Ballard seat got a little cooler but if next years FA comes and goes and we stand Pat again I’m throwing it into the fire.

[smittywerb]

16 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

 

Him and Chase Young are who I want the colts to go after.  Both fill needs and are young.  Doubt we’d get both but I’d be happy with either or.  I know we have our guys to resign but somehow I hope Ballard makes this happen.  

[DougDew]

8 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Lynch has built a good roster, not dominant. They haven't won a SB and won't without a franchise QB. I not 100% sold on Brock Purdy holding up the Lombardi. He was great at times for a 10 game stretch but the last 3 weeks, not impressed at all.

I don't follow SF, but its my understanding both Debo and their LT have been out....but should be back soon....so maybe the next few games will be a better test.

 

And they just traded for Chase Young because their pass rush has fallen off.  I guess Bosa hasn't been Superman this year,

[chad72]

34 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I don't follow SF, but its my understanding both Debo and their LT have been out....but should be back soon....so maybe the next few games will be a better test.

 

And they just traded for Chase Young because their pass rush has fallen off.  I guess Bosa hasn't been Superman this year,

 

Something probably had to do with Charles Omenihu in the middle not being available to push the pocket anymore to allow Bosa to clean up and vice versa, can't pay them all. Omenihu is now next to Chris Jones with the Chiefs. But then, when teams choose to run far more versus the Chiefs as opposed to pass, they stand a good chance versus the Chiefs.

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, smittywerb said:

After seeing who got moved, I’m actually ok with standing pat.  Young didn’t want to resign right away with whatever team he was going in order to test the FA market so I understand that.  Rethinking Scary Terry, he is 28 so he’s a little up in age and will be when our QB and team starts to come on.  Rasual Douglas, same thing. 
 

so with that said, I’m ok.  Now come the off-season, Mr. Ballard better offer chase young a lot of money because that would instantly fill a need and save us having to find someone in the draft.

 

Hopefully Ballard looks to sign a corner in free agency soon we can at least slow the bleeding this year.  It’s clear this team is in a semi-rebuild so if we do go for someone, it’s going to be someone younger.  We’re the 3rd youngest team in the league and for sustained success the talent will have to be able to stick around with AR.  Ballard seat got a little cooler but if next years FA comes and goes and we stand Pat again I’m throwing it into the fire.

I’m surprised Ballard can’t find a corner on another team’s practice squad.  There are 31 teams out there and some I would think would have some veteran help sitting there.  But he continues to bring in players for workouts that are guys looking for work on the street.  Same old same old.

[jimmy g]

8 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Yep. Colts and Bills are both in the AFC, so there's equal opportunity away from the Packers where they won't face him that much. 

 

It came down to either Ballard wasn't interested (which is the most likely scenario), or he's just cheap (he didn't want to give up the 3rd (which means he didn't want to match the Bills or he gave a lowball offer or both)). I'm just a mixture of frustrated and disinterested and angry at this point. Something like this shouldn't be the boiling point for me, but it's a combination of an inept GM with his conservative ways combined with the fact that said GM can't make a decision whether to buy or sell. We get offers for Moss, but they aren't high enough so we hold on to him even though he's a FA at the end of the year. Rasul Douglas is available at a discount, but we aren't buyers so we aren't going to adapt to a buyers' market and fill a weakness. This team has no direction and no excitement, and Ballard can't make a decision either way. We're just stuck as a mediocre team until next year when we have to hope Richardson can develop again. Very frustrating.

It’s also possible the Packers did their player a favor and sent him to a better team for HIM, as we did sending Hines to Buffalo, or as many say we might do for Moss?????  Or maybe someone on the Colts staff knows the kid and told Ballard to stay away?   None of us were there in the office to know?????
 

It’s been posted on here that the Colts have been known to cooperate and help their players who were good to them in the past. 

[jimmy g]

1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

I’m surprised Ballard can’t find a corner on another team’s practice squad.  There are 31 teams out there and some I would think would have some veteran help sitting there.  But he continues to bring in players for workouts that are guys looking for work on the street.  Same old same old.

I’ve wondered- do the PS players who are asked about have a choice as to come or stay?  I have no idea- but it does seem strange….

[cdgacoltsfan]

1 hour ago, smittywerb said:

Him and Chase Young are who I want the colts to go after.  Both fill needs and are young.  Doubt we’d get both but I’d be happy with either or.  I know we have our guys to resign but somehow I hope Ballard makes this happen.  

Um...it's too late

[chad72]

27 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I’m surprised Ballard can’t find a corner on another team’s practice squad.  There are 31 teams out there and some I would think would have some veteran help sitting there.  But he continues to bring in players for workouts that are guys looking for work on the street.  Same old same old.

 

I am sure he is looking....

 

[Yoshinator]

29 minutes ago, jimmy g said:

It’s also possible the Packers did their player a favor and sent him to a better team for HIM, as we did sending Hines to Buffalo, or as many say we might do for Moss?????  Or maybe someone on the Colts staff knows the kid and told Ballard to stay away?   None of us were there in the office to know?????
 

It’s been posted on here that the Colts have been known to cooperate and help their players who were good to them in the past. 

This is fair. It goes with the "not interested" theory, but at least it's a legit reason that has history behind it. I can accept this as a possibility.

[w87r]

6 hours ago, DougDew said:

I guess Bosa hasn't been Superman this year,

He's grading out as the #2 EDGE out of 107.

 

https://www.pff.com/nfl/teams/san-francisco-49ers/28/roster

 

His sack numbers are down for sure, but he even acknowledged that holding out had an impact on him. Seems to be playing well in the other aspects though to grade out at #2.

 

 

[smittywerb]

5 hours ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

Um...it's too late

both are free agents at the end of this year and reports said young didn’t want to resign with anyone he went to because he wants to get his money in free agency.  If this is true I’m glad we didn’t trade for either because if they didn’t stick around then we would’ve lost out on the draft capital also.