PFF Ranks Ballard In 2nd Tier (MERGE)

[ShuteAt168]

17 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

What were you expecting this year?   
 

 

It’s the previous six at issue 

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, ShuteAt168 said:

It’s the previous six at issue 

From your perspective.   But from my perspective fans don’t have much to complain about when we’re talking about 2018 to 2023.    
 

But you, and others who I think of as Ballard-haters insist on including 2017 on his record.   Technically you’re right.   But you constantly use 2017 when you talk about Ballard and you use it as a weapon. 
 

Ballard didn’t have his HC of choice, his coordinators of choice, nor the rest of his staff.  It was Pagano and his staff.   CB didnt even have his franchise QB.   But you and others who don’t like Ballard always include the 2017 record of 4-12.   It’s the argument of a hater.   I think you’re a very smart guy but I think the argument is beneath you, not worthy of you. 
 

Clearly, we see this very differently.  
 

 

[Defjamz26]

On 11/19/2023 at 2:23 PM, John Hammonds said:

"The Colts' roster in recent years has resembled a Whac-A-Mole board, where one glaring deficiency has been able to tank what is otherwise a team with talented trench units

I agree with the ranking except for where BB is listed. I especially agree with the quoted part. Every year the position he downplays the most is the one that ends up holding us back. It’s usually been WR, corner, and Edge. The issue though is that he sticks to much to his Build-A-Ballard type of guys and ends up drafting the same type of disappointing players at those positions. Too many raw, traitsy senior edge rushers, too many tall and stiff WRs who can’t separate consistently. It looks like he may have hit on corner finally though which is a relief.

 

I also think he needs to lean on FA more as PFF stated. The Colts have been a young team for years now, never seeming to get older. Youth=inexperience. The top tier teams in the NFL aren’t heavily relying on guys on rookie deals. The Eagles are a veteran team with only Carter and Smith really playing significant roles as young players. The Chiefs are a veteran team. The Lions are a veteran team. The Cowboys are a veteran team. Etc…Always betting on draft picks to hit is a risky gamble. Because when they don’t pan out, and you haven’t supplemented those positions with veterans, you end up drafting young players (who need time to develop) to start for you and you’re back at square

[DougDew]

If we throw out the seasons we expected to be bad, including the one after he's been GM for five seasons, Ballard would look good.   

 

And I agree that the Colts have seemed to always be one of the youngest teams.  That's weird, and probably not a good thing. 

[throwing BBZ]

On 11/19/2023 at 4:00 PM, Smonroe said:

For sure with Sweat and Young.  BTW, Sweat’s heart condition was misdiagnosed.  We also could have gone after Williams, but I can understand not doing that.

 

What I really wanted to see was Ballard making a run for Brian Burns.  He most likely will be moving on next season.  
 

And I’m not talking about what they could do for us this season, I’m taking the long haul.  Or we can keep drafting them and hope one turns out…. Kwity, Dayo, Lewis, all good players.  None of them great.  

 

 

 Burns wasn't available so? Proven publicly when they said no to two #1's.

[Smonroe]

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Burns wasn't available so? Proven publicly when they said no to two #1's.

The two ones were from last season.  I think they’re going to keep him, but the closer it gets to the end of his contract, the less leverage theyll have.  Probably franchise him.

 

IMHO, he’s worth a 1.  

[ShuteAt168]

14 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

From your perspective.   But from my perspective fans don’t have much to complain about when we’re talking about 2018 to 2023.    
 

But you, and others who I think of as Ballard-haters insist on including 2017 on his record.   Technically you’re right.   But you constantly use 2017 when you talk about Ballard and you use it as a weapon. 
 

Ballard didn’t have his HC of choice, his coordinators of choice, nor the rest of his staff.  It was Pagano and his staff.   CB didnt even have his franchise QB.   But you and others who don’t like Ballard always include the 2017 record of 4-12.   It’s the argument of a hater.   I think you’re a very smart guy but I think the argument is beneath you, not worthy of you. 
 

Clearly, we see this very differently.  
 

 

Should a coach’s first year not be included in his record because he didn’t have any say in the team? By your logic, this year shouldn’t count because CB doesn’t have his QB of choice. In all my years of following sports, I’ve never heard of eliminating a season from someone’s career record because he didn’t have the team set up exactly how he wants. It’s bizarre. I also don’t see why those of us who criticize CB using his record are “haters.” Are you a simp or fan boy? I’m optimistic about this team and being in contention for the playoffs and I like Steichen and am excited about AR, but I won’t pretend Ballard’s mediocrity hasn’t been on full display for six seasons. 

[BeanDiasucci]

2 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

Should a coach’s first year not be included in his record because he didn’t have any say in the team? By your logic, this year shouldn’t count because CB doesn’t have his QB of choice. In all my years of following sports, I’ve never heard of eliminating a season from someone’s career record because he didn’t have the team set up exactly how he wants. It’s bizarre. I also don’t see why those of us who criticize CB using his record are “haters.” Are you a simp or fan boy? I’m optimistic about this team and being in contention for the playoffs and I like Steichen and am excited about AR, but I won’t pretend Ballard’s mediocrity hasn’t been on full display for six seasons. 

To me, it's so lame when adults use the term hater for those who don't like something or someone as much as they do. I'm not a Ballard lover, but I am a Ballard liker. Yet I'm sure many would call me a hater. He's in a business in which you need to be great - and perhaps very lucky? - to succeed. I think he's been good, but certainly not great. His shortcomings seem like a fairly short and addressable list, so it's frustrating when he appears stubborn about changing. The Josh Downs pick, though, suggested that Steichen will change Ballard in positive directions. I'm hopeful. 

[NewColtsFan]

9 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

Should a coach’s first year not be included in his record because he didn’t have any say in the team? By your logic, this year shouldn’t count because CB doesn’t have his QB of choice. In all my years of following sports, I’ve never heard of eliminating a season from someone’s career record because he didn’t have the team set up exactly how he wants. It’s bizarre. I also don’t see why those of us who criticize CB using his record are “haters.” Are you a simp or fan boy? I’m optimistic about this team and being in contention for the playoffs and I like Steichen and am excited about AR, but I won’t pretend Ballard’s mediocrity hasn’t been on full display for six seasons. 

I literally wrote the words, technically you’re right.  The 2017 record goes on Ballard’s record.   

But you use it to demonstrate what you think Ballard’s ability is.   Every time anyone praises Ballard, you respond with his record.   You’re using the 2017 record as a weapon to demonstrate what you really think of Ballard.  
 

I’ve pointed out all the reasons why 2017 shouldn’t be held against him.   You literally laughed.   I’ve pointed out that Irsay was willing to fire Grigson who was 49-31 with three more years on his contract but doesn’t fire Ballard with a much worse record.   And you laughed.   
 

So please don’t tell me you’re not a hater.  You don’t think he’s very good and you’ve stated that in no uncertain terms many times.   So let’s not pretend otherwise.  
 

You're entitled to any opinion you want,  but I don’t think you make fair arguments.  

 

[ShuteAt168]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I literally wrote the words, technically you’re right.  The 2017 record goes on Ballard’s record.   

But you use it to demonstrate what you think Ballard’s ability is.   Every time anyone praises Ballard, you respond with his record.   You’re using the 2017 record as a weapon to demonstrate what you really think of Ballard.  
 

I’ve pointed out all the reasons why 2017 shouldn’t be held against him.   You literally laughed.   I’ve pointed out that Irsay was willing to fire Grigson who was 49-31 with three more years on his contract but doesn’t fire Ballard with a much worse record.   And you laughed.   
 

So please don’t tell me you’re not a hater.  You don’t think he’s very good and you’ve stated that in no uncertain terms many times.   So let’s not pretend otherwise.  
 

You're entitled to any opinion you want,  but I don’t think you make fair arguments.  

 

“You’re using the 2017 record as a weapon to demonstrate what you really think of Ballard.” No, sir, I continually use his GM career record — his entire body of work — by posting his record. I don’t know what could be more fair. 50-57-1, by the way. I don’t think you’ve answered this: Say CB had a healthy Luck and the Colts won 13 games in Ballard’s first season. Would you be pointing out that, well, CB really shouldn’t get credit for that first season since he didn’t acquire the QB? Course not. That would be ludicrous. Good grief: How did I get sucked back into this “remove a GM season record” debate? lol. You can have the last word. 

[ColtStrong2013]

We have had average seasons because of average qb play. Nothing more or less. It’s a qb league and Ballard went through the qb carousel that so many go through. Andrew’s last year included a playoff birth and playoff win. Rivers year was a playoff birth and a damn near upset on the road against a good Buffalo team. 
 

I don’t see how anyone could say that Ballard’s rosters have been less competitive than Grigson’s were. We were blown several games with #12 under center with poor running games and anwful defense.  Under Ballard, we’ve competed with and beaten Super Bowl contenders and winners. The difference between what we have and what we’d like to have is qb play. 

[NewColtsFan]

On 11/21/2023 at 1:57 PM, ShuteAt168 said:

“You’re using the 2017 record as a weapon to demonstrate what you really think of Ballard.” No, sir, I continually use his GM career record — his entire body of work — by posting his record. I don’t know what could be more fair. 50-57-1, by the way. I don’t think you’ve answered this: Say CB had a healthy Luck and the Colts won 13 games in Ballard’s first season. Would you be pointing out that, well, CB really shouldn’t get credit for that first season since he didn’t acquire the QB? Course not. That would be ludicrous. Good grief: How did I get sucked back into this “remove a GM season record” debate? lol. You can have the last word. 

Apologies upfront….   It’s 5 days later and I’m just now seeing your post.   And I stumbled into it by accident.  
 

So I’ll respond.   I don’t care that you don’t like Ballard, all I ask is to be up front.  I far more respect the loud Ballard-haters here who give their reasons.  At least they have the courage of their convictions.  They don’t care if their view is unpopular.  
 

What rubs me the wrong way about your argument is that you want it both ways.  You make the argument of a hater but when I call you a hater you act shocked.
 

What?   Me?   A hater?   No.   I’m just citing facts.   You try to hide your view.   Even in your last post you proclaimed “How did you get sucked in?”    You did by making hater arguments.  
 

Im not trying to convince anyone to like Ballard.  That ship has long sailed.  I recently said I had no problem with PFF ranking him 14th.   But as for you, just be honest.   If/when CB gets fired you’ll be happy.   Fine.  Just say so now.  Own it.   

[compuls1v3]

On 11/19/2023 at 12:23 PM, John Hammonds said:

So, what are you going to do when the Colts are on a bye?  Be a rabble rouser!  I rouse rabble!  Rouse rouse rouse!

 

This week, PFF did a ranking of general managers.  And, hey presto, Chris Ballard was not in their highest ranking.

 

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-general-manager-rankings-2023-eagles-howie-roseman-chiefs-brett-veach

 

They made their determinations based on:

1. Draft pick production compared to expectation
2. Positional value consideration
3. Draft trade value
4. Free-agent signing value compared to expectation
5. Early extensions

 

Their commentary on Ballard:

 

"The Colts' roster in recent years has resembled a Whac-A-Mole board, where one glaring deficiency has been able to tank what is otherwise a team with talented trench units. For 2023, the secondary is devoid of building-block talent outside of second-round rookie Julius Brents, but the offensive line is seemingly back playing to its talent level after atrophying in 2022. With a lot of positives on display from rookie quarterback Anthony Richardson, who we won’t see again until 2024 due to injury, there’s reason to believe maybe Ballard can build a true contender for the first time since the end of the Andrew Luck era.

Ballard’s best move in a while appears to be the hiring of head coach Shane Steichen, and there should be optimism going forward. Ballard may need to supplement this roster with more free-agent talent than he’s been willing to target in the past, but that’s how you take advantage of the rookie contract window — in moderation, of course."

 

Ranking:

TIER 1: CLEAR VISION, SOUND PROCESS, BALANCE OF SHORT- AND LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES

Howie Roseman, Eagles

Brett Veach, Chiefs

Duke Tobin, Bengals

Jerry Jones, Cowboys

Bill Belichick, Patriots

TIER 2: CLEAR VISION, MOSTLY SOUND PROCESS, SOMETIMES FOCUSED ON “WINDOWS”

Brandon Beane, Bills

John Schneider, Seahawks

John Lynch/Kyle Shanahan, 49'ers

Eric DeCosta, Ravens

Brad Holmes, Lions

Jason Licht, Buccaneers

Les Snead, Rams

Brian Gutekunst, Packers

Chris Ballard, Colts

Joe Douglas, Jets

Andrew Berry, Browns

TIER 3: QUESTIONABLE PROCESS, VARYING RESULTS

Micky Loomis, Saints

Chris Grier, Dolphins

Terry Fontenot, Falcons

Tom Telesco, Chargers

Trent Baalke, Jaguars

Nick Caserio, Texans

George Paton, Broncos

Ron Rivera/Martin Mayhew, Commanders

Scott Fitterer, Panthers

TOO NEW

Omar Khan, Steelers

Monti Ossenfort, Cardinals

Ryan Poles, Bears

Kwesi Adofo-Mensah, Vikings

Joe Schoen, Giants

Ran Carthon, Titans

Champ Kelly, Raiders

Are you kidding me?? The Patriots??  What a joke. 

[Yoshinator]

4 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

We have had average seasons because of average qb play. Nothing more or less. It’s a qb league and Ballard went through the qb carousel that so many go through. Andrew’s last year included a playoff birth and playoff win. Rivers year was a playoff birth and a damn near upset on the road against a good Buffalo team. 
 

I don’t see how anyone could say that Ballard’s rosters have been less competitive than Grigson’s were. We were blown several games with #12 under center with poor running games and anwful defense.  Under Ballard, we’ve competed with and beaten Super Bowl contenders and winners. The difference between what we have and what we’d like to have is qb play. 

I generally agree with this. However, most GMs have to draft a rookie QB and build around him anyway. Ballard had a luxury most GMs didn't for a short time. The problem was that Ballard thought he could compete with simply a veteran QB and a team he built primarily through the draft. This did two things, it stunted the teams growth by having guys like Phillip Rivers and Matt Ryan as QB rather than taking a QB early in the draft (and in Wentz's case, we gave up a 1st rounder+ anyway). We could have traded up for Herbert or Tua in 2020 for a heavy price most likely, and I have no doubt we could have traded up from 21 to 11 to get Fields as the Bears did a deal from 20 to 11. We jumped the gun on Wentz. Yes, we didn't have Steichen yet (as Fields is similar to Richardson and Hurts for him), but it's just an example of wasting capital on a veteran as well as Matt Ryan for a 3rd that wasted a year and a draft pick. 

 

Combine that with not spending much in FA and not focusing on premium positions in the draft as well as paying non-premium positions that haven't fully worked out (Leonard obviously and somewhat Nelson), and the team is crippled in many ways and 7 years later, we are still rebuilding. I understand we can't help injuries, but Ballard's strategy was completely wrong after the fact in thinking we were a contender to sign and trade for all those veterans. The Richardson injury is just unfortunate and Minshew in hindsight, was a good backup plan. 

 

The results are a 50-57-1 GM with a losing record, no playoff divisional wins, 1-2 in the playoffs.

 

He's just now got us where many new GMs have their teams in years 2 and 3. This is year 7.

[OLD FAN MAN]

On 11/20/2023 at 10:19 AM, GoColts8818 said:

Yeah but that’s not Buckner’s fault though.  He’s done everything you could have hoped for since the Colts got him. The Colts problem is that they have not had a QB.  Think about what happened to Polian’s teams and Grigson’a team when they lost Peyton or Luck for an extended period of time.  They were awful, like one of the three worst teams in the league awful.  Outside of last year you can’t really say that about Ballard’s teams.  That tells me he’s done a pretty good job putting the rest of the roster together he just hasn’t had a franchise QB. It all comes down to Richardson if he works out Ballard is going to be here for a while.  If he has fails Ballard is going to be gone.

ballard needs to get ar some playmakers

[OLD FAN MAN]

28 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I generally agree with this. However, most GMs have to draft a rookie QB and build around him anyway. Ballard had a luxury most GMs didn't for a short time. The problem was that Ballard thought he could compete with simply a veteran QB and a team he built primarily through the draft. This did two things, it stunted the teams growth by having guys like Phillip Rivers and Matt Ryan as QB rather than taking a QB early in the draft (and in Wentz's case, we gave up a 1st rounder+ anyway). We could have traded up for Herbert or Tua in 2020 for a heavy price most likely, and I have no doubt we could have traded up from 21 to 11 to get Fields as the Bears did a deal from 20 to 11. We jumped the gun on Wentz. Yes, we didn't have Steichen yet (as Fields is similar to Richardson and Hurts for him), but it's just an example of wasting capital on a veteran as well as Matt Ryan for a 3rd that wasted a year and a draft pick. 

 

Combine that with not spending much in FA and not focusing on premium positions in the draft as well as paying non-premium positions that haven't fully worked out (Leonard obviously and somewhat Nelson), and the team is crippled in many ways and 7 years later, we are still rebuilding. I understand we can't help injuries, but Ballard's strategy was completely wrong after the fact in thinking we were a contender to sign and trade for all those veterans. The Richardson injury is just unfortunate and Minshew in hindsight, was a good backup plan. 

 

The results are a 50-57-1 GM with a losing record, no playoff divisional wins, 1-2 in the playoffs.

 

He's just now got us where many new GMs have their teams in years 2 and 3. This is year 7.

you nailed it!!!!!

[Nesjan3]

Not sure Ballard deserves 2nd tier. 7 years in, below .500, no division titles, no big contracts at any premium positions meaning, QB, WR, LT, Pass Rush, Corner. You would think 7 years in we would have 1 of those things lol.

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I generally agree with this. However, most GMs have to draft a rookie QB and build around him anyway. Ballard had a luxury most GMs didn't for a short time. The problem was that Ballard thought he could compete with simply a veteran QB and a team he built primarily through the draft. This did two things, it stunted the teams growth by having guys like Phillip Rivers and Matt Ryan as QB rather than taking a QB early in the draft (and in Wentz's case, we gave up a 1st rounder+ anyway). We could have traded up for Herbert or Tua in 2020 for a heavy price most likely, and I have no doubt we could have traded up from 21 to 11 to get Fields as the Bears did a deal from 20 to 11. We jumped the gun on Wentz. Yes, we didn't have Steichen yet (as Fields is similar to Richardson and Hurts for him), but it's just an example of wasting capital on a veteran as well as Matt Ryan for a 3rd that wasted a year and a draft pick. 

 

Combine that with not spending much in FA and not focusing on premium positions in the draft as well as paying non-premium positions that haven't fully worked out (Leonard obviously and somewhat Nelson), and the team is crippled in many ways and 7 years later, we are still rebuilding. I understand we can't help injuries, but Ballard's strategy was completely wrong after the fact in thinking we were a contender to sign and trade for all those veterans. The Richardson injury is just unfortunate and Minshew in hindsight, was a good backup plan. 

 

The results are a 50-57-1 GM with a losing record, no playoff divisional wins, 1-2 in the playoffs.

 

He's just now got us where many new GMs have their teams in years 2 and 3. This is year 7.

I don’t think we are rebuilding at all.  I think overall we have a very good roster that is 90% complete.  Unfortunately AR’s injury has set us back but 10 games in we are still in the playoff hunt with a backup quarterback leading the team.  Who would have thought was possible.   It’s unfortunate about the veteran quarterbacks but Ballard was trying to give Reich the quarterbacks he wanted.  He came close with Rivers so I would imagine giving Wentz and Ryan a chance made sense.  Many observers at the time felt the Colts were just missing that quarterback.  Assuming AR is the quarterback we need we are in a great position right now.  The rest of this year could be a fun ride.  But I’m looking forward to the offseason as well.  Now that we have the quarterback and coach Ballard can focus his energies to bringing in those missing pieces to complete the roster.  I’m feeling pretty good about our roster actually. 

[OLD FAN MAN]

47 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

you nailed it!!!!!

nick caserio was the pats director of player personal during the pats winning records, he made sure brady had weapons and he didnt limit his roster to just the draft like ballard does. he had 22 years of experience and his team record was 246-107-1 . imo he should be ranked number one of gms, in 2 years under him the texans went from last place to fighting for first in our division. his trades and roster filling have been one of the best in the nfl. he had a big hand in the pats dynasty. ballard could take lessons from his method but ballard wont change. ballard imo should be ranked low tier

[OLD FAN MAN]

On 11/21/2023 at 4:28 PM, ShuteAt168 said:

Should a coach’s first year not be included in his record because he didn’t have any say in the team? By your logic, this year shouldn’t count because CB doesn’t have his QB of choice. In all my years of following sports, I’ve never heard of eliminating a season from someone’s career record because he didn’t have the team set up exactly how he wants. It’s bizarre. I also don’t see why those of us who criticize CB using his record are “haters.” Are you a simp or fan boy? I’m optimistic about this team and being in contention for the playoffs and I like Steichen and am excited about AR, but I won’t pretend Ballard’s mediocrity hasn’t been on full display for six seasons. 

great post

[ColtStrong2013]

2 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I generally agree with this. However, most GMs have to draft a rookie QB and build around him anyway. Ballard had a luxury most GMs didn't for a short time. The problem was that Ballard thought he could compete with simply a veteran QB and a team he built primarily through the draft. This did two things, it stunted the teams growth by having guys like Phillip Rivers and Matt Ryan as QB rather than taking a QB early in the draft (and in Wentz's case, we gave up a 1st rounder+ anyway). We could have traded up for Herbert or Tua in 2020 for a heavy price most likely, and I have no doubt we could have traded up from 21 to 11 to get Fields as the Bears did a deal from 20 to 11. We jumped the gun on Wentz. Yes, we didn't have Steichen yet (as Fields is similar to Richardson and Hurts for him), but it's just an example of wasting capital on a veteran as well as Matt Ryan for a 3rd that wasted a year and a draft pick. 

 

Combine that with not spending much in FA and not focusing on premium positions in the draft as well as paying non-premium positions that haven't fully worked out (Leonard obviously and somewhat Nelson), and the team is crippled in many ways and 7 years later, we are still rebuilding. I understand we can't help injuries, but Ballard's strategy was completely wrong after the fact in thinking we were a contender to sign and trade for all those veterans. The Richardson injury is just unfortunate and Minshew in hindsight, was a good backup plan. 

 

The results are a 50-57-1 GM with a losing record, no playoff divisional wins, 1-2 in the playoffs.

 

He's just now got us where many new GMs have their teams in years 2 and 3. This is year 7.

#1, this assumes that Irsay didn’t meddle entirely with the qb decisions, which I believe he forced with Frank’s input over Ballard’s. It was well known that we were hot on Herbert. Ed Dodds scouted him himself. We that pick for Buckner. It was also known that Ballard liked Fields and we went the Wentz route, which was clearly a Frank Reich influenced move in which he apologized for after the season. 
 

#2 paying non-premium positions isn’t an issue when you have no availability at the premium positions and those that you are paying are the stars you have drafted. The cap space situation under Ballard is top notch. That’s much thanks to Mike Bluem and Ballard’s slow process. Why rush when you don’t have a stable qb room and developing premium positions? Free agency spending? Who wants to come to Indy? It’s always funny to me when people use that argument. No one is coming here on a deal that isn’t overspending. We didn’t have many options for premium positions in free agency. 
 

#3 many new gms are fired by year 3, let’s make that clear. The successful ones all point to successful qb play. the singe reason (even though he says otherwise) Chris Ballard took this position was because of Andrew Luck. Not many teams would lose Andrew Luck and win the games this franchise has won. aside from the 2017 and 2022 seasons, this franchise has been pretty damn competitive under Ballard’s management. Those season’s resulted in coaching changes and subsequent success the following years. 
 

My decision on Ballard is out until AR is back on that field. If he busts, I will be amongst those saying he didn’t succeed here. The jury is still very much out in my opinion. I don’t blame Irsay’s for rolling with him and the current situation for a few more years. 

[OLD FAN MAN]

5 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

#1, this assumes that Irsay didn’t meddle entirely with the qb decisions, which I believe he forced with Frank’s input over Ballard’s. It was well known that we were hot on Herbert. Ed Dodds scouted him himself. We that pick for Buckner. It was also known that Ballard liked Fields and we went the Wentz route, which was clearly a Frank Reich influenced move in which he apologized for after the season. 
 

#2 paying non-premium positions isn’t an issue when you have no availability at the premium positions and those that you are paying are the stars you have drafted. The cap space situation under Ballard is top notch. That’s much thanks to Mike Bluem and Ballard’s slow process. Why rush when you don’t have a stable qb room and developing premium positions? Free agency spending? Who wants to come to Indy? It’s always funny to me when people use that argument. No one is coming here on a deal that isn’t overspending. We didn’t have many options for premium positions in free agency. 
 

#3 many new gms are fired by year 3, let’s make that clear. The successful ones all point to successful qb play. the singe reason (even though he says otherwise) Chris Ballard took this position was because of Andrew Luck. Not many teams would lose Andrew Luck and win the games this franchise has won. aside from the 2017 and 2022 seasons, this franchise has been pretty damn competitive under Ballard’s management. Those season’s resulted in coaching changes and subsequent success the following years. 
 

My decision on Ballard is out until AR is back on that field. If he busts, I will be amongst those saying he didn’t succeed here. The jury is still very much out in my opinion. I don’t blame Irsay’s for rolling with him and the current situation for a few more years. 

it should not take 7 years to get better, we had a very weak division most of those years. now in a short time the jags and texans seem so far ahead of us. if ballard let frank pick the talent that is still on ballard

[Nesjan3]

10 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

#1, this assumes that Irsay didn’t meddle entirely with the qb decisions, which I believe he forced with Frank’s input over Ballard’s. It was well known that we were hot on Herbert. Ed Dodds scouted him himself. We that pick for Buckner. It was also known that Ballard liked Fields and we went the Wentz route, which was clearly a Frank Reich influenced move in which he apologized for after the season. 
 

#2 paying non-premium positions isn’t an issue when you have no availability at the premium positions and those that you are paying are the stars you have drafted. The cap space situation under Ballard is top notch. That’s much thanks to Mike Bluem and Ballard’s slow process. Why rush when you don’t have a stable qb room and developing premium positions? Free agency spending? Who wants to come to Indy? It’s always funny to me when people use that argument. No one is coming here on a deal that isn’t overspending. We didn’t have many options for premium positions in free agency. 
 

#3 many new gms are fired by year 3, let’s make that clear. The successful ones all point to successful qb play. the singe reason (even though he says otherwise) Chris Ballard took this position was because of Andrew Luck. Not many teams would lose Andrew Luck and win the games this franchise has won. aside from the 2017 and 2022 seasons, this franchise has been pretty damn competitive under Ballard’s management. Those season’s resulted in coaching changes and subsequent success the following years. 
 

My decision on Ballard is out until AR is back on that field. If he busts, I will be amongst those saying he didn’t succeed here. The jury is still very much out in my opinion. I don’t blame Irsay’s for rolling with him and the current situation for a few more years. 

Regarding number 2 lol. So whos fault is it then that we dont have any players at premium positions to pay? Your kind of making a case for the Ballard haters.

[ColtStrong2013]

Ballard said when he got here that you know that you’re doing well organizationally when two things happen, aside from winning. 1) when players you cut are being picked up. That has happened a lot here the last few years. and 2) when executives and coaches are being pulled from your organization to promotions in other orgs. That list is growing by the year. 
 

By all accounts from other executives and people in the know, Ballard is a very organized and methodical manager. He draws in top talent in the front office and coaching staff. He’s drafted well competitively, he just didn’t go strong at premium positions early on. If Raimann and AR turn into all-pro players, not one person is going to dispute Ballard as a talented drafter. He had the most all-pros on roster just two seasons ago. 

2 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

it should not take 7 years to get better, we had a very weak division most of those years. now in a short time the jags and texans seem so far ahead of us. if ballard let frank pick the talent that is still on ballard

you are a fool if you think Chris Ballard has more influence over the owner… 

 

Those teams had better qb play. Period.

[ColtStrong2013]

1 minute ago, Nesjan3 said:

Regarding number 2 lol. So whos fault is it then that we dont have any players at premium positions to pay? Your kind of making a case for the Ballard haters.

how many teams have success drafting left tackle and quarterback? 
 

We very clearly have our left tackle now. Qb is the question mark. Our edge rusher was drafted in the 20s… Aside from drafting Nelson in 2018, when did he have opportunity to get premier positions? 

[OLD FAN MAN]

On 11/21/2023 at 4:45 PM, NewColtsFan said:

I literally wrote the words, technically you’re right.  The 2017 record goes on Ballard’s record.   

But you use it to demonstrate what you think Ballard’s ability is.   Every time anyone praises Ballard, you respond with his record.   You’re using the 2017 record as a weapon to demonstrate what you really think of Ballard.  
 

I’ve pointed out all the reasons why 2017 shouldn’t be held against him.   You literally laughed.   I’ve pointed out that Irsay was willing to fire Grigson who was 49-31 with three more years on his contract but doesn’t fire Ballard with a much worse record.   And you laughed.   
 

So please don’t tell me you’re not a hater.  You don’t think he’s very good and you’ve stated that in no uncertain terms many times.   So let’s not pretend otherwise.  
 

You're entitled to any opinion you want,  but I don’t think you make fair arguments.  

 

what we have here is lovers and haters !!!!!

[ColtStrong2013]

3 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

Your kind of making a case for the Ballard haters.

I don’t think the Ballard haters have much ability to step out and look at the options and really make a case for what could have been better. There were not many during his time. Especially without taking more risk. He wanted to build slowly, cost effectively (to the Irsay’s delight of cash savings im sure) while fielding competitive teams, which he unquestionably has. We won 4 games last year. One of them was against the Super Bowl champion, and one of the losses was a sole possession game against the runner-up. Step back and really look at the substance of the last seven years and compare it to the previous 7. 

[OLD FAN MAN]

1 minute ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

I don’t think the Ballard haters have much ability to step out and look at the options and really make a case for what could have been better. There were not many during his time. Especially without taking more risk. He wanted to build slowly, cost effectively (to the Irsay’s delight of cash savings im sure) while fielding competitive teams, which he unquestionably has. We won 4 games last year. One of them was against the Super Bowl champion, and one of the losses was a sole possession game against the runner-up. Step back and really look at the substance of the last seven years and compare it to the previous 7. 

how many more years will it take to win our division? I

am 79 years old , any chance that will happen in my time? it has been a long 7 years with no results

[Nesjan3]

3 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

I don’t think the Ballard haters have much ability to step out and look at the options and really make a case for what could have been better. There were not many during his time. Especially without taking more risk. He wanted to build slowly, cost effectively (to the Irsay’s delight of cash savings im sure) while fielding competitive teams, which he unquestionably has. We won 4 games last year. One of them was against the Super Bowl champion, and one of the losses was a sole possession game against the runner-up. Step back and really look at the substance of the last seven years and compare it to the previous 7. 

I have. The previous 7 years we had Wr's, a Lt, a QB, corners, some pass rush, a couple division titles and a winning record. Grigson inherited most of that so im not saying he was a good GM either. 7 years in with Ballard we have no big contract at any premium position. Not a winning record, no division titles. Thats embarrassing IMO. 

[ColtStrong2013]

2 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

how many more years will it take to win our division? I

am 79 years old , any chance that will happen in my time? it has been a long 7 years with no results

Man, you’ve had it rough the last 23 years as a fan huh? Go ask some of the teams that have cycled gm, hc and qb’s for the last 5 decades with little success how they feel. 
 

I’d say 2024 could very well be a division championship. This season is unlikely but not out of question. Cheer on your Colts for a hell of a run to finish this year! 

[ColtStrong2013]

3 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

I have. The previous 7 years we had Wr's, a Lt, a QB, corners, some pass rush, a couple division titles and a winning record. Grigson inherited most of that so im not saying he was a good GM either. 7 years in with Ballard we have no big contract at any premium position. Not a winning record, no division titles. Thats embarrassing IMO. 

Grigson did nothing… he inherited a left tackle in Castonzo, a pass rusher in Mathis, a receiver in Wayne and the easy decision of drafting Andrew luck. What a joke. 
 

he also spent more wasted money on guys that never did anything for this franchise and some here try to convince others that Ballard is a dummy for not spending boat loads of money… 

[ShuteAt168]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Apologies upfront….   It’s 5 days later and I’m just now seeing your post.   And I stumbled into it by accident.  
 

So I’ll respond.   I don’t care that you don’t like Ballard, all I ask is to be up front.  I far more respect the loud Ballard-haters here who give their reasons.  At least they have the courage of their convictions.  They don’t care if their view is unpopular.  
 

What rubs me the wrong way about your argument is that you want it both ways.  You make the argument of a hater but when I call you a hater you act shocked.
 

What?   Me?   A hater?   No.   I’m just citing facts.   You try to hide your view.   Even in your last post you proclaimed “How did you get sucked in?”    You did by making hater arguments.  
 

Im not trying to convince anyone to like Ballard.  That ship has long sailed.  I recently said I had no problem with PFF ranking him 14th.   But as for you, just be honest.   If/when CB gets fired you’ll be happy.   Fine.  Just say so now.  Own it.   

OK, I can tell this is important to you so… I’m a hater. Sleep better now. 

[Nesjan3]

1 hour ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Grigson did nothing… he inherited a left tackle in Castonzo, a pass rusher in Mathis, a receiver in Wayne and the easy decision of drafting Andrew luck. What a joke. 
 

he also spent more wasted money on guys that never did anything for this franchise and some here try to convince others that Ballard is a dummy for not spending boat loads of money… 

Agreed Grigson did nothing but inherit good players and a number 1 pick. He certainly didn't set up Ballard for success either.

 

However its my opinion that 7 years is more than enough time to build a contending team. Ballard has not done that.

 

People can argue on and on and on how solid the roster is. Were just a few pieces away. Fact is its a results driven league and the results are not their.

 

It boggles my brain that in 7 years he has not acquired one star worthy of a big contract at QB, LT, WR, Pass Rush, or Corner.

 

The verdict is out on Raimann and AR, but it took 7 years lol? Pittman might get a big contract but he is probably a number 2 on SB contending teams.

 

Hell the guy in Philly has built two separate contending teams with 1 SB and another appearance in the same amount of time.

[husker61]

I don’t understand the whole big contract thing. I seem to remember the pats that had a very good gm, would trade or let players go that were going to get big contracts except Brady. Did they have a top payed de, wr, cb (maybe one), or lt? How many hof players were there over those years? How many players left those teams and were as good or better with another team? A great qb and a top defensive coach makes a big difference. Being a top gm isn’t judged by how many top contract players you have!

[Nesjan3]

4 minutes ago, husker61 said:

I don’t understand the whole big contract thing. I seem to remember the pats that had a very good gm, would trade or let players go that were going to get big contracts except Brady. Did they have a top payed de, wr, cb (maybe one), or lt? How many hof players were there over those years? How many players left those teams and were as good or better with another team? A great qb and a top defensive coach makes a big difference. Being a top gm isn’t judged by how many top contract players you have!

You want players at premium positions worthy of big contracts. You cant compare any team ever to BB and Tom Brady the greatest HC QB duo in history. That just doesn't make sense. Look back at the last 20 SB winners not counting the Pats. They all had superstars at at least one if not more of the premium positions. 

[NFLfan]

On 11/19/2023 at 3:52 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

I have no real issue with Ballard’s ranking.  14th seems about right.   It’s not unreasonable.   
 

But I admit that the first tier had some names I wasn’t expecting to see that high….  
 

Duke Tobin. Cincy

Jerry Jones.  Dallas

Bill Belichick.    NE.  
 

How long has Tobin been in Cincy?   They had a stretch of 6 straight seasons where they won 2-6 games.   Was that in his watch?    If so,  how does he merit top tier?

 

Jerry Jones?    Top tier?    Really?   I don’t think he’s as bad as some make him out to be, but top tier?    Not for me.  
 

Finally what I often read is that GM Belichick often lets down HC Belichick.   He might’ve been top tier years ago, but I don’t think as much of late. 
 

All just my two cents….   
 

Good post, John!   

 

I agree. I think John Lynch should be up there in the top tier.

[husker61]

7 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

You want players at premium positions worthy of big contracts. You cant compare any team ever to BB and Tom Brady the greatest HC QB duo in history. That just doesn't make sense. Look back at the last 20 SB winners not counting the Pats. They all had superstars at at least one if not more of the premium positions. 

everyone agrees on the qb, it’s the other positions where this argument falls short. Tell me how many had more? The colts had several for a lot of years (maybe 20?) and won one sb. That kind of kills your argument.

[Nesjan3]

14 minutes ago, husker61 said:

everyone agrees on the qb, it’s the other positions where this argument falls short. Tell me how many had more? The colts had several for a lot of years (maybe 20?) and won one sb. That kind of kills your argument.

2023 KC: Mahomes. Kelce (Basically a WR), Chris Jones

2022 Rams: Stafford, Kupp, Donald, Ramsey

2021 Bucs: Brady, Evans, a slough of good corners and pass rushers.

2020 Chiefs: Mahomes, Kelce, Tyreek HIll, Chris Jones

2019 Pats: Brady and BB

2018 Eagles: This one is kind of an outlier

2017 Pats: Brady and BB

2016  Broncos: Manning, D Thomas, Von Miller, Aquib Talib

2015 Pats: Brady and BB

2014 Seahawks: Russell Wilson and probably the greatest secondary ever

 

I mean it goes on and on and on. Theres one constant. They all have really good quarterbacks and a couple stars and premium positions. Maybe not all of them were on big contracts at the time but they would all go on to get those big contracts.

 

Ballard has acquired none of these type of players. None at all in 7 years. He is not BB and we dont have Tom Brady lol. So im not sure what your trying to argue?

 

**EDIT** Oh yah and I didn't even look at LT. Can guarantee most of those teams had top notch LT's as well

[NFLfan]

On 11/19/2023 at 9:35 PM, AwesomeAustin said:

I agree with everything you just said. I will admit that my only hesitation with him is he was Mr Irrelevant. That is completely unfair but for some reason I keep waiting for him to come back down to earth. I hope he doesn’t bc what he is doing is incredible. One of the best stories in the NFL in my eyes

 

I agree. Before he was drafted, I had asked a huge Iowa State fan if he thought it would be worth it for the Vikings to draft Purdy with a Day 3 pick. He liked Purdy in college but said that he did not believe Purdy would be more than a practice squad guy. He did not think Purdy would get drafted. So, with that, I too keep waiting for him to show weaknesses, but he has not; he is playing very well. 

 

I think it is always worth it to take a chance on a QB in the low rounds. If it works out, great. If not, then it did not cost much to draft him. Cut him or place him on the practice squad.

[husker61]

8 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

2023 KC: Mahomes. Kelce (Basically a WR), Chris Jones

2022 Rams: Stafford, Kupp, Donald, Ramsey

2021 Bucs: Brady, Evans, a slough of good corners and pass rushers.

2020 Chiefs: Mahomes, Kelce, Tyreek HIll, Chris Jones

2019 Pats: Brady and BB

2018 Eagles: This one is kind of an outlier

2017 Pats: Brady and BB

2016  Broncos: Manning, D Thomas, Von Miller, Aquib Talib

2015 Pats: Brady and BB

2014 Seahawks: Russell Wilson and probably the greatest secondary ever

 

I mean it goes on and on and on. Theres one constant. They all have really good quarterbacks and a couple stars and premium positions. Maybe not all of them were on big contracts at the time but they would all go on to get those big contracts.

 

Ballard has acquired none of these type of players. None at all in 7 years. He is not BB and we dont have Tom Brady lol. So im not sure what your trying to argue?

looks like you are justifying other positions to try and make your point. The premium positions people are talking about are qb, wr, lt, de, and cb. Please show me what players on that list play those positions.

 

now you include, they went on to get big contracts also. lol. Maybe the colts have some of those players naw.