Why are some teams always in playoff contention

[shakedownstreet]

randomness is random

[OLD FAN MAN]

great gms who know how to get above average talent on their teams

[chad72]

GMs like Ozzie Newsome and Eric DeCosta know how to draft well and supplement with good FAs, same with Brett Veach and Lions/49ers GMs too.

 

The Chiefs are on their 4th safety and 5th CB in nickel and dime situations and still produce good secondary play. Coaching also matters.

[shakedownstreet]

On 1/15/2024 at 9:35 PM, indyagent17 said:

Why are some teams always in playoff contention

 

[Mighty Blue]

On 1/24/2024 at 6:58 AM, shakedownstreet said:

 

Dude, a direct hit!

 

No way to top this!

 

Time to end this Topic’s postings!

 

PLEASE!

 

 

 

 

[Boondoggle]

On 1/15/2024 at 8:35 PM, indyagent17 said:

I’ve been putting a lot of thought to this just thinking about it how come Pittsburgh has never had a losing season. Why was the New England so good for so many years? Why is San Francisco always competing for championship? It’s because they have great owners that their general managers on the team. Great coaching from the entire staff and steller scouting. Rarely missing on draft picks

The GM has to be capable at a minimum.  He has to hire a good coach, or a good coach has to hire a capable GM.  One of those two.  And those two need to be in lockstep.  Pulling in one direction.

 

Obviously the better the two positions the better chance you have of winning every year.  And some coaches are good enough to pull a GM over that line but you gotta have both if you want to win consistently and even then there will be down years.

 

On top of that if you have a good cap planner and an owner who can move money around with the deep pockets to pay out to the players to enable it, you can get away with murder just about.  You hear all this hubbub about teams going all in, but some can do that every season because of those elements being in place.  There's a big difference in that regard in owners.  Most recent example would be the Rams who won a SB and cleaned house this past year and somehow are going to have a cleared cap in '24.  It's some nonsense.

[CoachLite]

9 hours ago, Boondoggle said:

The GM has to be capable at a minimum.  He has to hire a good coach, or a good coach has to hire a capable GM.  One of those two.  And those two need to be in lockstep.  Pulling in one direction.

 

Obviously the better the two positions the better chance you have of winning every year.  And some coaches are good enough to pull a GM over that line but you gotta have both if you want to win consistently and even then there will be down years.

 

On top of that if you have a good cap planner and an owner who can move money around with the deep pockets to pay out to the players to enable it, you can get away with murder just about.  You hear all this hubbub about teams going all in, but some can do that every season because of those elements being in place.  There's a big difference in that regard in owners.  Most recent example would be the Rams who won a SB and cleaned house this past year and somehow are going to have a cleared cap in '24.  It's some nonsense.

Pulling in one direction, but it should be the right direction, too. Pulling down doesn't work.

[shasta519]

10 hours ago, Boondoggle said:

The GM has to be capable at a minimum.  He has to hire a good coach, or a good coach has to hire a capable GM.  One of those two.  And those two need to be in lockstep.  Pulling in one direction.

 

Obviously the better the two positions the better chance you have of winning every year.  And some coaches are good enough to pull a GM over that line but you gotta have both if you want to win consistently and even then there will be down years.

 

On top of that if you have a good cap planner and an owner who can move money around with the deep pockets to pay out to the players to enable it, you can get away with murder just about.  You hear all this hubbub about teams going all in, but some can do that every season because of those elements being in place.  There's a big difference in that regard in owners.  Most recent example would be the Rams who won a SB and cleaned house this past year and somehow are going to have a cleared cap in '24.  It's some nonsense.

But according to the Colts owner, the Rams were a cautionary tale and were paying for it for mortgaging their future to win a SB. Yet they were still a playoff team last year. 

 

 

[ColtStrong2013]

3 hours ago, shasta519 said:

But according to the Colts owner, the Rams were a cautionary tale and were paying for it for mortgaging their future to win a SB. Yet they were still a playoff team last year. 

 

 

In a conference that had a division end in tiebreaker at 9 wins. They had 10 wins. They still have a very good qb (in a year where qbs were hurt) and one of the best defensive players of all time. But those guys will soon be irrelevant. Sean Mcvay is no safe bet to coach longterm either. They did find a diamond in the rough in Puka. He’s very good and he’s in a great system. 
 

So it can have weight and also not impact their direct future. They will be in a rebuild at some point soon, and they used a lot of capital to win that championship, which was no sure thing. It is just a cautionary tale. A lot of teams try, only a few pull it off. 
 

and also- the team on the receiving end of a great deal of that mortgage could win the Super Bowl this year and has an excellent future… 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

In a conference that had a division end in tiebreaker at 9 wins. They had 10 wins. They still have a very good qb (in a year where qbs were hurt) and one of the best defensive players of all time. But those guys will soon be irrelevant. Sean Mcvay is no safe bet to coach longterm either. They did find a diamond in the rough in Puka. He’s very good and he’s in a great system. 
 

So it can have weight and also not impact their direct future. They will be in a rebuild at some point soon, and they used a lot of capital to win that championship, which was no sure thing. It’s just a cautionary tale. A lot of teams try, only a few pull it off. 

 

This was a rebuilding year for the Rams. They were able to have a somewhat successful season because they had good QB play and good coaching. But they had to get rid of a bunch of good players to get under the cap, and wound up with $70m in dead cap last year. 

[ColtStrong2013]

47 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This was a rebuilding year for the Rams. They were able to have a somewhat successful season because they had good QB play and good coaching. But they had to get rid of a bunch of good players to get under the cap, and wound up with $70m in dead cap last year. 

Yeah. My primarily point is they spent big on a 35 year old qb (36 in a few weeks)- they have a defensive tackle that’s got one foot out the door and coach that many don’t see staying past Stafford’s exit (and that may not be in the near future, but he isn’t getting younger when the rest of the league is.) 

 

What many like to conveniently ignore is that the Rams had already made the Super Bowl 3 years prior- and had major pieces in place to pull the trigger for an upgrade at qb and load up the roster for their championship. LA is pretty attractive for free agents, especially that want to win a championship. Is was no secret that Matt Staffords wife wanted to be there and they had even bought a house years prior to the trade. 
 

that trade and the money they spent was because they felt they were in a position to win a Super Bowl with it (and they were). Not everyone has that success. It’s usually reflective of the qb play, which the rams figured out, but most teams that spend big do not. 

[Boondoggle]

8 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

that trade and the money they spent was because they felt they were in a position to win a Super Bowl with it (and they were). Not everyone has that success. It’s usually reflective of the qb play, which the rams figured out, but most teams that spend big do not. 

This is why I mention the owner too.  The owner does matter but is often overlooked.  Not all of them are willing to restructure deals to extend windows so some teams have an advantage there.

[ColtStrong2013]

6 hours ago, Boondoggle said:

This is why I mention the owner too.  The owner does matter but is often overlooked.  Not all of them are willing to restructure deals to extend windows so some teams have an advantage there.

I don’t disagree. I think Irsay probably has to be more cautious with cash spent than other owners. Ballard’s method has undoubtedly saved Irsay a lot of money. So there’s the obvious metrics that we use to judge Ballard, but Irsay might be looking at a complete picture that none of us even comprehend from an ownership standpoint. 

I know it’s been discussed over the years on this forum. 

[DavePSL]

We just need really good drafting. The Rams had no high picks, and they had a tremendous draft and have a bright future. Watching these playoffs tells us we have to get a legit TE1 and stop depending on injured or average players waiting to produce. Ballard still scares me. I can't believe he admitted he was surprised by AR passing ability. This was the guy Ballard would have taken with the number 1 pick and he was surprised by how good of a passer AR was? That could imply Steichen had more to do with who we picked than Ballard.

 

BTW, Texans, Rams, Lions, Packers all turned it around quickly because of solid drafts. I like last years draft but we need one more solid draft at key positions starting with explosive skill positions (TE,WR) to help AR as much as possible......... Realistically, Ballard should have been gone but I still believe he can get it done for some reason.

[ColtStrong2013]

18 minutes ago, DavePSL said:

Ballard still scares me. I can't believe he admitted he was surprised by AR passing ability. This was the guy Ballard would have taken with the number 1 pick and he was surprised by how good of a passer AR was? That could imply Steichen had more to do with who we picked than Ballard.

 

He said he was concerned about his passing, which he didn't have much film to base it off of. Why is that shocking? They drafted him on his potential and his athleticism. He had as strong of an arm coming out of college as has been for some time. He Stroud and Levis all did. They had one season essentially to base it off and there were known concerns with his accuracy, by every source you can find. 

 

I think Ballard's comments regarding AR's throwing is good to hear. They are pleased with where he is, and they believe Steichen will continue to coach and groom him into a legitimate dual-threat weapon.

[DavePSL]

9 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

He said he was concerned about his passing, which he didn't have much film to base it off of. Why is that shocking? They drafted him on his potential and his athleticism. He had as strong of an arm coming out of college as has been for some time. He Stroud and Levis all did. They had one season essentially to base it off and there were known concerns with his accuracy, by every source you can find. 

 

I think Ballard's comments regarding AR's throwing is good to hear. They are pleased with where he is, and they believe Steichen will continue to coach and groom him into a legitimate dual-threat weapon.

“I’m going to tell you one of the things that really surprised me with Anthony because I was concerned about it, but this guy is a passer. We all kind of — because here’s this big talented athlete. 

 

IMO, doesn't need to be said and I also would NOT spend a number 1 pick on a QB if I'm concerned about him being a passer?

[ColtStrong2013]

Just now, DavePSL said:

“I’m going to tell you one of the things that really surprised me with Anthony because I was concerned about it, but this guy is a passer. We all kind of — because here’s this big talented athlete. 

 

IMO, doesn't need to be said and I also would NOT spend a number 1 pick on a QB if I'm concerned about him being a passer?

 

Every player had concerns. The concern for stroud was not his passing, it was his ability to grasp bigger concepts at the nfl level, by all accounts. Little man Young's was just that, his size. Richardson's was his accuracy (not his arm) and it was due to being so raw. Of course he was concerned about his passing. That was his only knock. He's admitting he was concerned and thought it would take time to develop, and he doesn't think that anymore.

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, DavePSL said:

“I’m going to tell you one of the things that really surprised me with Anthony because I was concerned about it, but this guy is a passer. We all kind of — because here’s this big talented athlete. 

 

IMO, doesn't need to be said and I also would NOT spend a number 1 pick on a QB if I'm concerned about him being a passer?

All Ballard said is that AR exceeded expectations.  That AR is ahead of schedule.   I don’t see a problem here. 

[ColtStrong2013]

On 1/15/2024 at 10:13 PM, ColtStrong2013 said:

If they don't make it to the superbowl again this year, they'll have major question marks. 

 

I'll give the San Francisco 49ers their credit. They turned it on, had some luck go their way, but ultimately made big plays when they mattered most (those 4th down stops especially). Purdy used his legs extremely well tonight. Look forward to seeing what they do against the Chiefs. Two teams that have recent superbowl history with one another.

 

And I still stand by my comment... Had they not turned it around tonight, there would undoubtedly have been question marks. But they got it done, so that discussion is over.

[DavePSL]

4 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

Every player had concerns. The concern for stroud was not his passing, it was his ability to grasp bigger concepts at the nfl level, by all accounts. Little man Young's was just that, his size. Richardson's was his accuracy (not his arm) and it was due to being so raw. Of course he was concerned about his passing. That was his only knock. He's admitting he was concerned and thought it would take time to develop, and he doesn't think that anymore.

No way did the Texans GM say anything like that about Stroud. Exact opposite. They said they had confidence in him since they picked him from day one. Other people may have questioned Stroud but nobody in their building...Just a little surprised Ballard said that because it didn't need to be said. How about we believed in AR and watching him play, he is exactly what he expected ?

[ColtStrong2013]

12 minutes ago, DavePSL said:

No way did the Texans GM say anything like that about Stroud. Exact opposite. They said they had confidence in him since they picked him from day one. Other people may have questioned Stroud but nobody in their building...Just a little surprised Ballard said that because it didn't need to be said. How about we believed in AR and watching him play, he is exactly what he expected ?

 

Well considering this conversation seems to have three people right now and you are the only one that feels that way about his comments, I'd disagree with you. 

He didn't have to say it, you are correct. But he said it to emphasize the point, which you are ignoring for what he said his concerns were. The point was that he is farther along than they thought he was as a passer, which was their only concern. Everything else are strengths that had no concern. His intellect, his drive, his leadership, humbleness, his arm strength, his clear alien athleticism. All strengths. He had one concern by all accounts, his accuracy and his raw passing ability. It's been addressed, as far as Ballard's concerned.

 

Also, Stroud wasn't available to us. Could we have traded for the first pick? Possibly. But he wasn't available where we were picking. They clearly didn't value trading up to #1 for him over sitting put and getting Richardson, or they would have undoubtedly done it. Everything regarding that at this point is hindsight bias. And just because they said he was their main pick doesn't mean they didn't have the same ability to trade up a spot to ensure they got him, which they did not. Tells me they felt the same about their options. They might have wanted him, but they were willing to gamble and take whoever was next on the board had the Panthers taken Stroud.

[DavePSL]

 

Ballard also said there was no QB coming out worthy of trading up for. Now, I love AR and his potential and have no regrets, but Ballard better be right on AR because Stroud clearly was worth trading up for and Ballard was wrong about that. There are certain things that our GM doesn't need to say because it doesn't age well and makes some of us question his evaluation process and his drafts even more. This is a big year for him, and this offseason will go a long way to determine if he keeps his job, so he better be on point after talking about his own expectations for this team starting next year.....no excuses. We need wins, competing for the division and talent. No more talking about how players exceeded his own expectations without reaching those expectations set by himself for this team. I want him to succeed as much as anybody because I'm not interested in starting over again but we can't live in mediocrity forever as other teams continue to pass us by. FTR, I think last year was a great start, but he has to keep it going.  If he fails, he'll get another job but its colts' fans that will be stuck with his mess.

[ArmchairQB]

16 minutes ago, DavePSL said:

 

Ballard also said there was no QB coming out worthy of trading up for. Now, I love AR and his potential and have no regrets, but Ballard better be right on AR because Stroud clearly was worth trading up for and Ballard was wrong about that. There are certain things that our GM doesn't need to say because it doesn't age well and makes some of us question his evaluation process and his drafts even more. This is a big year for him, and this offseason will go a long way to determine if he keeps his job, so he better be on point after talking about his own expectations for this team starting next year.....no excuses. We need wins, competing for the division and talent. No more talking about how players exceeded his own expectations without reaching those expectations set by himself for this team. I want him to succeed as much as anybody because I'm not interested in starting over again but we can't live in mediocrity forever as other teams continue to pass us by. FTR, I think last year was a great start, but he has to keep it going.  If he fails, he'll get another job but its colts' fans that will be stuck with his mess.

Bryce Young was a consensus number 1 pick in most people’s eyes at the time.  I know we’re all looking at this with hindsight after seeing what happened this past season.  Have you ever heard a GM say they didn’t get their guy?  Of course not.  The optics of that would be awful.  
 

Stroud was the logical pick at 2 for Houston so it’s not as though they had to take a huge leap of faith.   I think Ballard was comfortable enough that one of the three consensus top 3 would still be there at 4 so there was no need to trade up.  Had Richardson gone at one or two we would have ended up with whomever didn’t.  I know he says otherwise but I don’t believe Ballard would’ve taken AR at 1 but that’s just my opinion.  
 

We were all cautioned that AR would be a project and to have patience.  Nothing wrong with him acknowledging that maybe he’s not as much of a project as we thought.  

[ColtStrong2013]

20 minutes ago, ArmchairQB said:

Bryce Young was a consensus number 1 pick in most people’s eyes at the time.  I know we’re all looking at this with hindsight after seeing what happened this past season.  Have you ever heard a GM say they didn’t get their guy?  Of course not.  The optics of that would be awful.  
 

Stroud was the logical pick at 2 for Houston so it’s not as though they had to take a huge leap of faith.   I think Ballard was comfortable enough that one of the three consensus top 3 would still be there at 4 so there was no need to trade up.  Had Richardson gone at one or two we would have ended up with whomever didn’t.  I know he says otherwise but I don’t believe Ballard would’ve taken AR at 1 but that’s just my opinion.  
 

We were all cautioned that AR would be a project and to have patience.  Nothing wrong with him acknowledging that maybe he’s not as much of a project as we thought.  

 

Yeah. And the fact that Houston didn't trade up to #1 to ensure Stroud tells me a lot. They likely had similar thoughts on the class/the value of not trading up, as Ballard did. They just happened to get the best guy. The Panthers are the ones having to deal with the debating. I don't necessarily believe we would have taken Richardson either. I think Stroud would have been the pick. However, I think they saw enough from both players, whatever that was throughout their evaluations that said getting one of them would be worth not spending the amount of capital it would have required to get the other. I don't believe we were in the Bryce Young conversation unless he was what was left at #4, which was never going to happen. I think the Colts felt good about the odds of getting Richardson at #4 and that's why they sat. 

 

[ArmchairQB]

22 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

Yeah. And the fact that Houston didn't trade up to #1 to ensure Stroud tells me a lot. They likely had similar thoughts on the class/the value of not trading up, as Ballard did. They just happened to get the best guy. The Panthers are the ones having to deal with the debating. I don't necessarily believe we would have taken Richardson either. I think Stroud would have been the pick. However, I think they saw enough from both players, whatever that was throughout their evaluations that said getting one of them would be worth not spending the amount of capital it would have required to get the other. I don't believe we were in the Bryce Young conversation unless he was what was left at #4, which was never going to happen. I think the Colts felt good about the odds of getting Richardson at #4 and that's why they sat. 

 

If someone would have swooped in to 3 for Richardson like the Vikings were trying to Ballard would have drafted Levis.  I doubt he would have traded back and risked not getting at least Levis had it come to that.  

[ColtStrong2013]

8 hours ago, ArmchairQB said:

If someone would have swooped in to 3 for Richardson like the Vikings were trying to Ballard would have drafted Levis.  I doubt he would have traded back and risked not getting at least Levis had it come to that.  

There weren’t many teams left that was pressing for qb. I think he could have traded back several spots at the very minimum and got a pretty good haul as well as Levis in that situation. But the video that showed his face when the trade was announced tells me they were fully expecting Richardson to be there at 4 unless someone jumped them for him. There were too many good players available. Look at the production the non-qb players in the top 10 this year- Anderson and Witherspoon went 3 and 5 and were pro bowlers. Bijan Robinson. Tyree was considered by many to be the better pass rusher in the draft (not by me- that was Anderson imo, but nevertheless) two offensive tackles and a stud in Jalen Carter. 

[jvan1973]

11 hours ago, DavePSL said:

 

Ballard also said there was no QB coming out worthy of trading up for. Now, I love AR and his potential and have no regrets, but Ballard better be right on AR because Stroud clearly was worth trading up for and Ballard was wrong about that. There are certain things that our GM doesn't need to say because it doesn't age well and makes some of us question his evaluation process and his drafts even more. This is a big year for him, and this offseason will go a long way to determine if he keeps his job, so he better be on point after talking about his own expectations for this team starting next year.....no excuses. We need wins, competing for the division and talent. No more talking about how players exceeded his own expectations without reaching those expectations set by himself for this team. I want him to succeed as much as anybody because I'm not interested in starting over again but we can't live in mediocrity forever as other teams continue to pass us by. FTR, I think last year was a great start, but he has to keep it going.  If he fails, he'll get another job but its colts' fans that will be stuck with his mess.

He wasn't going to give the Bears more than the Panthers did,  and Houston wasn't going to trade the 2nd.  The Colts had no shot to get Stroud

[Moosejawcolt]

On 1/15/2024 at 9:20 PM, ColtStrong2013 said:

The Ballard hate is humorous to me. He inherited a pretty lousy roster and a battered franchise qb. We've been about as competitive as anyone would have expected to be in that circumstance. Sure, other teams might have continued their dysfunctional way of managing by firing and hiring new managers and coaches during the last 8 years, but it wouldn't have resulted in much. We are coming off the closest season to a divisional title that we've had since Andrew Luck was under center and are going into the most promising offseason we have had since 2019 when he retired abruptly.

I think the continuity and patience that Irsay family has shown since Luck's retirement is exactly why we continue to be in the same discussions by a majority of the league as the question that was posed in the original post. Why is the indianapolis colts so competitive even after Manning/Luck have been long gone. If this franchise takes a jump next year, those comments and the franchise record over the past 24 years will be shown more and more.

U cannot use the argument any longer regarding the idea that he inherited a lousy roster. He has had 8 years and here we are. I always tell people to dismiss the offence and lets give his supporters the excuse that he lost Luck and sent his franchise into a tail spin. Other teams have recovered and have built up some good teams. I would like an answer to  this question and have not gotten one yet. Lets just simply grade Ballard on the construction of this defense  and the scheme that he apparently loves. 8 years in please show me the elite D players that he as drafted? Provide evidence to show that his defense has been anything more than average after 8 years. He has put a ton of assets into the D line and the only player of any significance that he accumulated was Buckner who was drafted by another team. No elite D lineman, no elite safety's, no elite corners and  the only   elite D player he has  drafted was Leornard , who was a linebacker.  Probably the least valuable position on any D.  Plus, I have always said that his system is LB friendly. I maybe hard on Ballard, but for people to put give him a pass after 8 years, is kind of mind boggling. 

[Myles]

33 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

U cannot use the argument any longer regarding the idea that he inherited a lousy roster. He has had 8 years and here we are. I always tell people to dismiss the offence and lets give his supporters the excuse that he lost Luck and sent his franchise into a tail spin. Other teams have recovered and have built up some good teams. I would like an answer to  this question and have not gotten one yet. Lets just simply grade Ballard on the construction of this defense  and the scheme that he apparently loves. 8 years in please show me the elite D players that he as drafted? Provide evidence to show that his defense has been anything more than average after 8 years. He has put a ton of assets into the D line and the only player of any significance that he accumulated was Buckner who was drafted by another team. No elite D lineman, no elite safety's, no elite corners and  the only   elite D player he has  drafted was Leornard , who was a linebacker.  Probably the least valuable position on any D.  Plus, I have always said that his system is LB friendly. I maybe hard on Ballard, but for people to put give him a pass after 8 years, is kind of mind boggling. 

The defense was good this year.   Middle of the pack at worst.   Top 5 in sacks.  

It could be better but I think Ballard has done OK with it.  Hopefully AR works out so the QB door will close for a bit.

[DavePSL]

19 minutes ago, Myles said:

The defense was good this year.   Middle of the pack at worst.   Top 5 in sacks.  

It could be better but I think Ballard has done OK with it.  Hopefully AR works out so the QB door will close for a bit.

Middle of the pack? They were 24th in yards allowed and 28th in PPG.....That says bottom third at best ,IMO....BTW, against an easy schedule in which we played against a rook Qb or back up over half of our games. Against starters we gave up 30 ppg..8 of our last 9 games were played against backups or rooks....That won't happen next year and probably has a lot to do with our sack totals....Ballard has done a bad job at drafting DL and secondary with the amount of draft capitol he has spent at those positions. LBer he has been great.

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, Moosejawcolt said:

U cannot use the argument any longer regarding the idea that he inherited a lousy roster. He has had 8 years and here we are. I always tell people to dismiss the offence and lets give his supporters the excuse that he lost Luck and sent his franchise into a tail spin. Other teams have recovered and have built up some good teams. I would like an answer to  this question and have not gotten one yet. Lets just simply grade Ballard on the construction of this defense  and the scheme that he apparently loves. 8 years in please show me the elite D players that he as drafted? Provide evidence to show that his defense has been anything more than average after 8 years. He has put a ton of assets into the D line and the only player of any significance that he accumulated was Buckner who was drafted by another team. No elite D lineman, no elite safety's, no elite corners and  the only   elite D player he has  drafted was Leornard , who was a linebacker.  Probably the least valuable position on any D.  Plus, I have always said that his system is LB friendly. I maybe hard on Ballard, but for people to put give him a pass after 8 years, is kind of mind boggling. 

ok

[Superman]

On 1/28/2024 at 5:32 AM, ColtStrong2013 said:

I don’t disagree. I think Irsay probably has to be more cautious with cash spent than other owners. Ballard’s method has undoubtedly saved Irsay a lot of money. So there’s the obvious metrics that we use to judge Ballard, but Irsay might be looking at a complete picture that none of us even comprehend from an ownership standpoint. 

I know it’s been discussed over the years on this forum. 

 

This is the common belief. I don't think it holds up to scrutiny.

 

The Colts cash spending from 2019-2023, in millions: $192.8, 221.1, 222.6, 218, 236.7. In those five years, total cash spent on player contracts: $1,091.2. 

 

The Rams cash spending from 2019-2023, in millions: $188.7, 215.3, 192.4, 283.8, 183.5. Total cash spend on player contracts: $1,063.7. The bolded is the year they went "all in" for a SB. You'll see they spent less in cash than the Colts that season, but paid for it the following year.

 

The Colts spent $28.5m more, in cash, than the Rams, over these five years. So the bolded isn't actually true. Irsay isn't saving money. Maybe the schedule of cash flow is where Irsay has to be more conservative -- funding signing bonuses and guarantees -- but without seeing balance sheets and doing a cash flow analysis, we can't know that.

 

Also, I think NFL owners have access to major lines of credit that pretty much allow them to do whatever they need to do from a cash flow standpoint. Whether or not it's financially prudent in the long run is a different story, especially in a new environment of high interest, but without gross mismanagement and outright corruption, it's hard to imagine any NFL team having trouble maintaining cash flow. The Colts are well established, have a sweetheart arena deal, etc. I think if they wanted, the Colts have the financial standing to be less conservative with contract structure.

 

However, because the Colts manage their contracts and cap the way they do, they have a steady outlay from year to year, and never have to take drastic actions to get under the cap, like the Rams did in 2023. Think about that: in a raising salary cap environment, the Rams spent less cash on player contracts in 2023 than they did five years ago. And that's a result of their more aggressive cap management strategy.

 

Some might argue that they got more bang for their buck, and winning a SB makes that hard to argue against. 

[Nesjan3]

Maybe the answer is just as simple as some teams are run better than others

[ArmchairQB]

7 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

There weren’t many teams left that was pressing for qb. I think he could have traded back several spots at the very minimum and got a pretty good haul as well as Levis in that situation. But the video that showed his face when the trade was announced tells me they were fully expecting Richardson to be there at 4 unless someone jumped them for him. There were too many good players available. Look at the production the non-qb players in the top 10 this year- Anderson and Witherspoon went 3 and 5 and were pro bowlers. Bijan Robinson. Tyree was considered by many to be the better pass rusher in the draft (not by me- that was Anderson imo, but nevertheless) two offensive tackles and a stud in Jalen Carter. 

Where Levis ended up going says you are right.  Maybe he was sure.  I also noticed his reaction.  He shook his head when he heard Arizona had traded their pick,  then a split second later heard it was Houston and was clearly excited.

[BlackTiger]

4 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

for people to put give him a pass after 8 years, is kind of mind boggling. 

I agree with this and also that there are a lot of people still doing it.  Im not all in on firing him either but I could take him or leave him.

 

He is taking a long time to find a franchise qb.  I get that its hard to do and a lot of gms never pull it off but at some point you fire them and find the guy thats going to do it.  CB is getting a long pass for Luck retiring.

 

This is apparently what a Chris Ballard roster looks like too.  Its been quite a few years, this is his team and he owns the record what they have accomplished 

[Nesjan3]

Its about the organizations ability to find successful HC, GM, QB trios, and build a strong supporting cast along side within the salary cap rules. 

 

Its quite obvious some teams are much more adept at doing this than others. I really don't think its much more complicated than this.

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

This is the common belief. I don't think it holds up to scrutiny.

 

The Colts cash spending from 2019-2023, in millions: $192.8, 221.1, 222.6, 218, 236.7. In those five years, total cash spent on player contracts: $1,091.2. 

 

The Rams cash spending from 2019-2023, in millions: $188.7, 215.3, 192.4, 283.8, 183.5. Total cash spend on player contracts: $1,063.7. The bolded is the year they went "all in" for a SB. You'll see they spent less in cash than the Colts that season, but paid for it the following year.

 

The Colts spent $28.5m more, in cash, than the Rams, over these five years. So the bolded isn't actually true. Irsay isn't saving money. Maybe the schedule of cash flow is where Irsay has to be more conservative -- funding signing bonuses and guarantees -- but without seeing balance sheets and doing a cash flow analysis, we can't know that.

 

Also, I think NFL owners have access to major lines of credit that pretty much allow them to do whatever they need to do from a cash flow standpoint. Whether or not it's financially prudent in the long run is a different story, especially in a new environment of high interest, but without gross mismanagement and outright corruption, it's hard to imagine any NFL team having trouble maintaining cash flow. The Colts are well established, have a sweetheart arena deal, etc. I think if they wanted, the Colts have the financial standing to be less conservative with contract structure.

 

However, because the Colts manage their contracts and cap the way they do, they have a steady outlay from year to year, and never have to take drastic actions to get under the cap, like the Rams did in 2023. Think about that: in a raising salary cap environment, the Rams spent less cash on player contracts in 2023 than they did five years ago. And that's a result of their more aggressive cap management strategy.

 

Some might argue that they got more bang for their buck, and winning a SB makes that hard to argue against. 

 

I guess it's convenient to leave out his first two years, which were most frugal, to illustrate your point. 

Where do you find the cash spending? What does 2017 and '18 look like. I'm not really interested in what other teams are doing, quite honestly. I'm more curious as where the Colts sit year to year compared to where Ballard's predecessor had them. How far back can you look at cash spent? Obviously with an ever increasing cap and reveue stream, it's not exactly comparing apples to apples, but I'd like that to be the gauge of if he's saving the Irsay's money instead of versus what another team is doing. 

 

And as far as the Rams are concerned, they have had the best/most disprutive defensive player in the league for the past decade and they have had a top tier qb (or at least in my eyes). That's it. That's the difference. It took them being on the right side of a coin toss to beat this Colts team with a rookie under center. The superbowl year aside, are we really that far off from where the Rams have been and currently are? They have been a few wins give or take better than us every year since 2018. Again- difference is at qb and a premier defensive disrupter. 

[King Colt]

Drafting players to fill the weak spots not the most popular college golden boys.

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

I guess it's convenient to leave out his first two years, which were most frugal, to illustrate your point. 

Where do you find the cash spending? What does 2017 and '18 look like. I'm not really interested in what other teams are doing, quite honestly. I'm more curious as where the Colts sit year to year compared to where Ballard's predecessor had them. How far back can you look at cash spent? Obviously with an ever increasing cap and reveue stream, it's not exactly comparing apples to apples, but I'd like that to be the gauge of if he's saving the Irsay's money instead of versus what another team is doing. 

 

And as far as the Rams are concerned, they have had the best/most disprutive defensive player in the league for the past decade and they have had a top tier qb (or at least in my eyes). That's it. That's the difference. It took them being on the right side of a coin toss to beat this Colts team with a rookie under center. The superbowl year aside, are we really that far off from where the Rams have been and currently are? They have been a few wins give or take better than us every year since 2018. Again- difference is at qb and a premier defensive disrupter. 

 

All numbers per Spotrac.

 

I don't know why you would think I'm trying to be convenient. I choose the last five years because I thought it was a good sample size. And I compared them with the Rams because that was the other team being discussed. 

 

If we include 2017 and 2018, you're right, the Colts spent less money than the Rams in those seasons. But then you go back another two years, and it flip flops again. The ultimate result is that the Colts and Rams, and basically every team, spend the same amount of money on player salaries over a span of years, despite year to year variances. Because of the way cash spending hits the cap, and the cash spending floor, total spending has to balance out. Big picture, the range is not going to be that wide between the teams that spend the most on player salaries and the teams that spend the least, not over a span of years. 

 

I don't think it matters how you compare it. As long as you're comparing apples to apples, the idea that the Colts way of handling player salaries saves the team money compared to other teams is not supported by the facts. Yes, you can pick a short term window and show that one team spends more or less, but it all balances out, more or less. 

 

As for a roster comparison between the Colts and Rams, there's a lot of nuance there. But I think in most years when the Rams were making noise in the playoffs and the Colts were struggling to even get there -- which is the majority of the last seven years -- you could take the highest paid six or seven players from each team and see a significant difference in composition. The Rams had standout WRs, pass rushers, CBs, and have had Stafford for the last three years. The Colts best players were mostly interior OL/DL, a LT, ILB, and a few veteran QBs of varying quality. Like I said, I think they got more bang for their buck. 

 

And one of the things that I think the Rams in particular deserve credit for is moving highly paid players in and out. They obviously overpaid Allen Robinson, but instead of holding on to him and restructuring like the Saints have always done, they just moved on. Jalen Ramsey, Von Miller, etc. So there are snapshots of time where their roster was insanely talented.

 

You asked if we're really that far off from the Rams. I'm not one of the anti Ballard, 'he's had seven years and we haven't won the division, stop making excuses for him!' people. Don't put me in that category. But yeah, there's a significant difference between Ballard's Colts and the Rams. Even when both teams bottomed out in 2022, they weren't as low as the Colts, mostly because they have an established QB. And I think the distance between a bad team and a good team is far more significant than the distance between a good team and a championship contender. So the fact that they have been to two SBs and we haven't come close is pretty important. Right now, maybe the two teams are close, and I'd argue that maybe the Colts are pointing up and the Rams are pointing down, but because they're more aggressive in player acquisitions, that could easily change this offseason.

 

To get back to the earlier point, I think what Irsay said about the Rams was absolutely right. Just because they hit on a couple late round draft picks doesn't mean there's been no fallout from their earlier aggressiveness. They sacrificed a bunch of draft picks for veteran players, and then they had to get rid of a lot of those players to be cap compliant. So now, they only have three players on their entire roster who were drafted in the first round: Donald, Stafford, and Stafford's backup (Wentz). They're all in their 30s. Their young core is made up of mid to late round draft picks and UDFAs. They have a decently stable floor because they have a good veteran QB. a good coaching staff, and Aaron Donald. But they are absolutely paying the price for their aggressiveness in previous seasons. Yet, they won a SB, so it's likely that no one cares. If you could guarantee a team a SB trophy in exchange for 3-4 years of mediocrity, I think everyone would take the guaranteed SB. Of course, there is no guarantee.

[ColtStrong2013]

23 minutes ago, Superman said:

the idea that the Colts way of handling player salaries saves the team money compared to other teams is not supported by the facts

while I did say Irsay may have to be more cautious with cash spent than other owners, I never compared Ballard’s way of saving money to another team. I just stated that he saved Irsay money. And going back to the beginning of his tenure, there is little to argue that he hasn’t. A great deal of the cash spent was to players he drafted, which was the plan from the beginning and one that Irsay was obviously fond of since he hired him with that plan. 

 

23 minutes ago, Superman said:

But yeah, there's a significant difference between Ballard's Colts and the Rams. Even when both teams bottomed out in 2022, they weren't as low as the Colts, mostly because they have an established QB.

they were 1 game away from being as low as the colts on the only metric people pay attention to, and you mostly supported my point even when disagreeing. It is about having an established qb. They had the Goff/Mcvay connection and the Stafford/Mcvay connection throughout all of Ballard’s tenure with the colts. The difference between the wins and losses of the two teams has been exactly that + Aaron Donald. We will never have a player like Aaron Donald. I’m not sure there will be one again. He’s that good. My biggest argument to the Ballard hate on this forum (not accusing you, I know where you stand) is that what we have done versus the expectation is literally the quarterback position. Yes it’s his knock, it didn’t get solved, we can argue it all day long. But in my opinion, there has not been a significant difference in the colts and the rams- it’s two players. And it makes up the difference in a few games give or take each year.