Colts offseason discussion / Ballard Grievances (merge)

[csmopar]

49 minutes ago, stitches said:

Because our pressure numbers are extremely low. They are some of the lowest in the league and they don't correspond to what we got as sack production. Meaning - we were extremely lucky to get that many sacks when you consider how many pressures we got. It also means, in the future you might expect regression to the mean(i.e. much lower sack numbers, if our pass rush(pressures) doesn't improve considerably)

Okay. Fair enough. I guess I’m saying is that I don’t understand how we can have 60 sacks, 53 hits, out of 281 pressures. And that be a total bad thing

 

I looked it up, we had 1148 snaps total, that’s passing and running plays combined, on D according to PFF.  Of those 1148, we got pressure of some sort 281 times. That’s 24.45 percent. Basically we were gettin in the back field once every 4 snaps. 
 

now MOST sites do not show the passing vs run plays the defense faced. However, I decided to pay and found that opposing offenses passed against the Colts a total of 550 times with a completion total of 374 catches. 
 

however, I also learned that Pressures do not distinguish between type of plays called against. I also learned that TFL do not count towards pressures even if they are on the RB in the pocket. But a tackle in a scrambling QB out of the pocket with forward progress, doesn’t count as a sack but as a TFL.  I find that interesting.

 

anyway, let’s go back. So 550 pass down. We got pressure 281 times… that’s 51 percent. Which on paper, meant we were getting into the pocket every other passing snap. and we converted 21 percent of those into sacks. Btw, we also blitzed just 134 times.

 

Now this would apply to every team in the league for sure.

 

so I spot checked the Ravens cause they were mentioned earlier. 

 

Ravens: 1109(including playoffs) total defenses snaps. 624 of those were passing snaps. 285 total pressures.  They blitzed 202 times to get them too. 58 sacks.  So on passing downs, the Ravens got pressure on 45.67 percent of passing plays. That’s obviously really good(but the Colts were better with less blitzes) But I gotta wonder if we blitzed more, if our numbers wouldn’t be better

 

It also shows that we were ran on more often than the Ravens too…

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[Superman]

Just now, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

 

 

Pouring a lot of cold water on that NFLPA report card...

[JediXMan]

11 minutes ago, Patrick Miller said:

Colts need to snag Mike Williams.

He’ll get injured by week 8 pass.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

I looked it up, we had 1148 snaps total, that’s passing and running plays combined, on D according to PFF.  Of those 1148, we got pressure of some sort 281 times. That’s 24.45 percent. Basically we were gettin in the back field once every 4 snaps. 

 

I don't think we got pressure on 281 pass plays. I think maybe individual players were credited with 281 total pressures, but some of those individual pressures would have come on the same pass play. For example, two rushers both get pressure on the same play -- that's one play, with two credited pressures.

 

I think PFR does a better job of counting pressures on a per play basis, rather than on an individual player basis. PFR has the Colts with 127 pressures on 568 pass plays.

[csmopar]

Just now, Superman said:

 

I don't think we got pressure on 281 pass plays. I think maybe individual players were credited with 281 total pressures, but some of those individual pressures would have come on the same pass play. For example, two rushers both get pressure on the same play -- that's one play, with two credited pressures.

 

I think PFR does a better job of counting pressures on a per play basis, rather than on an individual player basis. PFR has the Colts with 127 pressures on 568 pass plays.

Yeah seems every source has it different.

 

PFF shows it at 281 pressures out of 550 pass downs.

NFL dot com lists it at 281 out of 1148 total snaps, 554 pass downs

NextGen lists it 262 and 550 pass down

 

[stitches]

3 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Okay. Fair enough. I guess I’m saying is that I don’t understand how we can have 60 sacks, 53 hits, out of 281 pressures. And that be a total bad thing

It's not a total bad thing. Our DLs converted pressures well last year, we had good sack production. The bad thing is that this is not sustainable. Teams don't convert over 20% of their pressures to sacks usually. In fact, the Colts were the only team that did it last year. 

 

3 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I looked it up, we had 1148 snaps total, that’s passing and running plays combined, on D according to PFF.  Of those 1148, we got pressure of some sort 281 times. That’s 24.45 percent. Basically we were gettin in the back field once every 4 snaps. 

24% doesn't tell us much of anything unless we compare it to the rest of the league. Here it is compared to the rest of the league... 

 

This shows the Colts as one of the worst teams in the league at creating pressure. 

 

[throwing BBZ]

2 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Okay. Fair enough. I guess I’m saying is that I don’t understand how we can have 60 sacks, 53 hits, out of 281 pressures.

 

I looked it up, we had 1148 snaps total, that’s passing and running plays combined, on D according to PFF.  Of those 1148, we got pressure of some sort 281 times. That’s 24.45 percent. Basically we were gettin in the back field once every 4 snaps. 
 

now MOST sites do not show the passing vs run plays the defense faced. However, I decided to pay and found that opposing offenses passed against the Colts a total of 550 times with a completion total of 374 catches. 
 

however, I also learned that Pressures do not distinguish between type of plays called against. I also learned that TFL do not count towards pressures even if they are on the RB in the pocket. But a tackle in a scrambling QB out of the pocket with forward progress, doesn’t count as a sack but as a TFL.  I find that interesting.

 

anyway, let’s go back. So 550 pass down. We got pressure 281 times… that’s 51 percent. Which on paper, meant we were getting into the pocket every other passing snap. and we converted 21 percent of those into sacks. Btw, we also blitzed just 134 times.

 

Now this would apply to every team in the league for sure.

 

so I spot checked the Ravens cause they were mentioned earlier. 

 

Ravens: 1109(including playoffs) total defenses snaps. 624 of those were passing snaps. 285 total pressures.  They blitzed 202 times to get them too. 58 sacks.  So on passing downs, the Ravens got pressure on 45.67 percent of passing plays. That’s obviously really good. But I gotta wonder if we blitzed more, if our numbers wouldn’t be better

 

 

 

 

  If Ballard would supply corners that weren't scared to death of getting beat in the first 2.5 seconds, we could blitz "perhaps surprise" the QB 3 more times a game creating change of possession maybe even a fumble or int.

 Not this let the guy catch it and see how soon we can catch them and get them to the ground.

 I'm praying for a corner that runs in the 4.3's that can frequently be left on an island. We aren't competing till this happens.

[NewColtsFan]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Pouring a lot of cold water on that NFLPA report card...

For a guy who said he didn’t want to downplay the report you sure seem to never miss the opportunity to downplay it.  

[Goatface Killah]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's not normal to convert 21% of pressures to sacks. I think that's pretty much fact. Everything else I said is open to debate, which is why I said 'most likely.' I also never said the team got 51 sacks on pure luck, right? 

 

But again, unless we can come up with some kind of explanation for why our pass rushers should be expected to convert pressures at a higher than normal rate, then we should acknowledge that 21% is not sustainable. 

 

I'm not sure where the comparison with the Chiefs is coming from.

Because you are comparing our pressure rate to the rest of the league, which isnt an apples to apples comparison, and then using that metric as a statement as to our talent level. The Chiefs example is just to show that these stats are far more complex than just talent = production. Scheme is a factor. A big one. Situational football is another factor. A big one. 

 

This is why people dont understand how GMs think. They tend to see it as a talent issue every time. GMs just dont think that way. 

 

Ballard signed Raekwon Davis because he thinks we need to perform better on early downs, which should lead to better performance on 3rd down, at least in theory. 3rd and long is optimal for creating pressure in our scheme. Our run defense needs to be stout. 

 

Its entirely possible that we just performed really well when we put ourselves into ideal situations for our scheme, but we just didnt put ourselves into those positions often enough to accumulate a high amount of pressures. 

 

Does that make sense?

[stitches]

18 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

They lost Moss and need a backup running back which is what Dillon is.  What’s not to get?

... again... the resource allocation. 

[Goatface Killah]

Just now, stitches said:

... again... the resource allocation. 

If you are looking to add important positions, or guys who you hope will become cornerstones of your team, doesnt it make sense to draft and develop those players instead of throwing tons of money at veterans?

 

I think this makes perfect sense. 

[csmopar]

10 minutes ago, stitches said:

It's not a total bad thing. Our DLs converted pressures well last year, we had good sack production. The bad thing is that this is not sustainable. Teams don't convert over 20% of their pressures to sacks usually. In fact, the Colts were the only team that did it last year. 

 

24% doesn't tell us much of anything unless we compare it to the rest of the league. Here it is compared to the rest of the league... 

 

This shows the Colts as one of the worst teams in the league at creating pressure. 

 

Well that chart actually shows the pressure rate in relation to the blitz rate. If you look at the horizontal, we have 32+ percent pressure rate. 

 

the vertical shows the blitz rate, we blitzed very rarely. Something I think has to change. But on that same token, it shows that when we did blitz we got pressure 32 percent of the time. 
 

this isn’t a chart showing the number of total pressures but rather a chart showing the numbers of pressures we got when we blitzed

[csmopar]

7 minutes ago, stitches said:

... again... the resource allocation. 

If it’s cheap enough, why does it matter? Again, it’s not like he’s signing another RB to a 10 mil per year contract.

 

people complain about the lack of depth, Ballard signs depth, people complain that he signed said depth. Geeze

[csmopar]

14 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 

 

  If Ballard would supply corners that weren't scared to death of getting beat in the first 2.5 seconds, we could blitz "perhaps surprise" the QB 3 more times a game creating change of possession maybe even a fumble or int.

 Not this let the guy catch it and see how soon we can catch them and get them to the ground.

 I'm praying for a corner that runs in the 4.3's that can frequently be left on an island. We aren't competing till this happens.

I completely agree there. That and adjusting the scheme so that we’re not playing 10 yards off would help

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

If you are looking to add important positions, or guys who you hope will become cornerstones of your team, doesnt it make sense to draft and develop those players instead of throwing tons of money at veterans?

 

I think this makes perfect sense. 

 

Both $ and draft picks are resources. And it's not like his draft resource allocation has been much different than his $ resource allocation. He's spending on what he believes in. We are paying 40+M for DTs... we have one of the most expensive OLs in the league. We have spend a #ton of picks on the DL in addition to the money... This is nothing new. Ballard has told us repeatedly what he believes in and he's been backing it up with everything he does. From FA to trades to the draft. 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Solid84 said:

Doesn't matter what the odds are. AR is a typical Ballard guy - raw and traitsy. If we wait for him to fully develop to make a decision on him we could be waiting 4 years completely wasting his rookie contract. It's not about aiming for the Super Bowl next season, it's about giving AR the best possible odds to succeed improving the team in any way we can. All Ballard has done so far is try to maintain the status quo. We're no better at rushing the passer, we're no better in pass defense, the offense is no more explosive.

 

I'm not talking about throwing the kitchensink at a Super Bowl run. I'm talking about improving the roster and Ballard willingly and knowingly limits himself by only using the draft.

The needle moving players cost a lot of money in free agency.  A big fat waste if AR isn't the guy immediately, and probably pushing dead cap hits into the years when AR has a real opportunity.  Nah, wait two or three more years to see if he is the guy, then resign him like Manning, Brady, Wilson, ,Mahomes, Rogers, etc. and build from there. 

 

Provided the GM can find draft picks that play better than their rookie contract compensation.  In the past 7 years, I count Nelson, Leonard, and probably Raimann as the only players that could play at a AFCCG level while playing under their rookie deals.

 

In the past we had Luck and TY during several good years...and before that Freeney, Mathis, Marlin Jackson, Kelvin Hayden, Dallas Clark, Austin Collie was pretty good immediately for a short time.  Bob Sanders was still under his rookie deal and a pro-bowler...all played well along side expensive PM to be a dynasty for a few years while they were 3 and 4 year players.

[GoColts8818]

5 minutes ago, csmopar said:

If it’s cheap enough, why does it matter? Again, it’s not like he’s signing another RB to a 10 mil per year contract.

 

people complain about the lack of depth, Ballard signs depth, people complain that he signed said depth. Geeze

Yeah like I said they need a backup running back with the loss of Moss.  When I suggest it could be Hull people didn’t like that and said Ballard needed to get someone better and now there is a report he is and people are still unhappy.  I think some are just determined if Ballard does something it’s automatically wrong.

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

For a guy who said he didn’t want to downplay the report you sure seem to never miss the opportunity to downplay it.  

 

...

 

My comment was made in jest. 

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Well that chart actually shows the pressure rate in relation to the blitz rate. If you look at the horizontal, we have 32+ percent pressure rate. 

 

the vertical shows the blitz rate, we blitzed very rarely. Something I think has to change. But on that same token, it shows that when we did blitz we got pressure 32 percent of the time. 
 

this isn’t a chart showing the number of total pressures but rather a chart showing the numbers of pressures we got when we blitzed

No it doesn't. It shows blitz rate on the vertical axis and pressure rates in general(not just when we blitz) on the horizontal axis. It shows 2 things:

1. We don't blitz a lot compared to the rest of the league

2. We don't get pressure a lot compared to the rest of the league 

[richard pallo]

So over 24 hours ago Julian Blackmon reportedly unfollowed the Colts and yet there is no news of him signing anywhere.  That seems odd to me.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[ColtStrong2013]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

In the past we had Luck and TY during several good years...and before that Freeney, Mathis, Marlin Jackson, Kelvin Hayden, Dallas Clark, Austin Collie was pretty good immediately for a short time.  Bob Sanders was still under his rookie deal and a pro-bowler...all played well along side expensive PM to be a dynasty for a few years while they were 3 and 4 year players.

No arguments on the defensive side of the ball, but I will argue until I’m blue in the face that the difference between Clark and Collie on a rookie deal and some of the rookie weapons we have had are the difference at QB… which was not even on the same universe. 
 

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

In the past 7 years, I count Nelson, Leonard, and probably Raimann as the only players that could play at a AFCCG level while playing under their rookie deals.

JT? 

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

Because you are comparing our pressure rate to the rest of the league, which isnt an apples to apples comparison, and then using that metric as a statement as to our talent level.

 

Maybe you got the wrong impression from what I said. My point is that the pressure conversion rate is likely circumstance dependent, and likely unsustainable. 

 

We had a similar conversation in another thread. I'd like to not continue this discussion in this thread because it's off topic.

[1959Colts]

1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

So over 24 hours ago Julian Blackmon reportedly unfollowed the Colts and yet there is no news of him signing anywhere.  That seems odd to me.

Perhaps the Colts told him they were moving in a different direction?

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

I think some are just determined if Ballard does something it’s automatically wrong.

 

This is so disingenuous.

[GoColts8818]

1 minute ago, 1959Colts said:

Perhaps the Colts told him they were moving in a different direction?

I am thinking that’s what happened.  I think Ballard determined they aren’t going to be keeping him and told his agent.

[Goatface Killah]

5 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

Both $ and draft picks are resources. And it's not like his draft resource allocation has been much different than his $ resource allocation. He's spending on what he believes in. We are paying 40+M for DTs... we have one of the most expensive OLs in the league. We have spend a #ton of picks on the DL in addition to the money... This is nothing new. Ballard has told us repeatedly what he believes in and he's been backing it up with everything he does. From FA to trades to the draft. 

But we havent got to the draft yet. All Im saying is maybe he is taking care of these things so he can be more targeted in the draft?

 

[GoColts8818]

Just now, Superman said:

 

This is so disingenuous.

It’s my opinion and just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it disingenuous.  Clearly some have problems with specific things Ballard does and that’s fine and not who I am talking about.  Yet there are others who only post negative things about Ballard and pretty much only complain whenever he does anything.  

[stitches]

12 minutes ago, csmopar said:

If it’s cheap enough, why does it matter? Again, it’s not like he’s signing another RB to a 10 mil per year contract.

 

people complain about the lack of depth, Ballard signs depth, people complain that he signed said depth. Geeze

Precisely because I don't expect AJ Dillon to be one of the cheapest options for a backup RB and precisely because we are already spending 14M a year on Taylor. If he comes at a vet minimum or thereabout, I will change my tune. I just don't expect that. Again - resource allocation... we continue spending more and more resource on the things that are not the most pressing needs for this team. We need to improve the passing game on O and we need to improve the pass defense on D the most right now. And instead we are spending 7m a year for backup nose tackle who in the best case scenario will barely see the field and more money on a backup RB when teams are getting not just backups but starters late in the draft or even as UDFAs... I don't mind us getting depth... I mind us spending more than we need to for backups at non-essential positions. 

[Goatface Killah]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Maybe you got the wrong impression from what I said. My point is that the pressure conversion rate is likely circumstance dependent, and likely unsustainable. 

 

We had a similar conversation in another thread. I'd like to not continue this discussion in this thread because it's off topic.

How is it off topic? Im responding to what you said in this thread. There are all kinds of claims being made about our perceived lack of pass rush. Im just offering a different perspective on why maybe Ballard is focusing on bringing in a guy like Davis, who is being painted as a below average football player when in reality he is an above average run defender. But as you wish.....

[MFT5]

21 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Well that chart actually shows the pressure rate in relation to the blitz rate. If you look at the horizontal, we have 32+ percent pressure rate. 

 

the vertical shows the blitz rate, we blitzed very rarely. Something I think has to change. But on that same token, it shows that when we did blitz we got pressure 32 percent of the time. 
 

this isn’t a chart showing the number of total pressures but rather a chart showing the numbers of pressures we got when we blitzed

 

yea if the colts blitz more we would get more pressure …. it happens en games, we see it & then gus decides we’ll let’s play C3 on 3rd n 7 .

[richard pallo]

3 minutes ago, 1959Colts said:

Perhaps the Colts told him they were moving in a different direction?

Could be.  He had a nice bounce back year after going to SS.  I know he’s had injury issues but so has Lewis.  We know Ballard likes to resign his own so if this is the case I am somewhat surprised.

[Superman]

Just now, Goatface Killah said:

How is it off topic? Im responding to what you said in this thread. There are all kinds of claims being made about our perceived lack of pass rush. Im just offering a different perspective on why maybe Ballard is focusing on bringing in a guy like Davis, who is being painted as a below average football player when in reality he is an above average run defender. But as you wish.....

 

It's a whole discussion that I think deserves another thread, and I think the FA happenings deserves it's own focus. Not a mod decision, just my own opinion. I'm happy to pick this up elsewhere though.

[stitches]

5 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

But we havent got to the draft yet. All Im saying is maybe he is taking care of these things so he can be more targeted in the draft?

 

We haven't got to this draft. We've seen him draft for 7 years before. But fair enough... lets see him overhaul the weapons and pass defense with the limited resources we have in the draft. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

It’s my opinion and just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it disingenuous.  Clearly some have problems with specific things Ballard does and that’s fine and not who I am talking about.  Yet there are others who only post negative things about Ballard and pretty much only complain whenever he does anything.  

 

It's my opinion that it's disingenuous. Especially in this thread, where the people who are taking issue with specific decisions are not the people who only post negative things about Ballard.

[1959Colts]

1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

Could be.  He had a nice bounce back year after going to SS.  I know he’s had injury issues but so has Lewis.  We know Ballard likes to resign his own so if this is the case I am somewhat surprised.

Yeah.  Harrison and Avery today... Why not Blackmon?

[GoColts8818]

Just now, stitches said:

We haven't got to this draft. We've seen him draft for 7 years before. But fair enough... lets see him overhaul the weapons and pass defense with the limited resources we have in the draft. 

He was never going to do that.  You are expecting something that was never going to happen.  That’s on you not him.

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

No arguments on the defensive side of the ball, but I will argue until I’m blue in the face that the difference between Clark and Collie on a rookie deal and some of the rookie weapons we have had are the difference at QB… which was not even on the same universe. 
 

JT? 

Not going down a rabbit hole of a sidebar discussion.  My point is that I don't criticize Ballard's style of not pursuing high priced FAs, because I don't think we've been close enough to being a 3 to 4 year contender as is required to get those big names and big contracts without blowing up the cap at some point.  

 

I think Ballard knows that the team has never been good enough to justify them ((despite the pressers), so who really knows what his approach will be when (if) AR has shown to be the guy.