Colts offseason discussion / Ballard Grievances (merge)

[richard pallo]

33 minutes ago, ProblChld32 said:

Your best ability is availability , why bring back someone who can’t stay healthy? I may be in the minority but I actually don’t want to retain Blackmon. He’s a good player when healthy but that’s the thing he isn’t often that. You’re going to shell out 6-8 million a year for a guy you’re possibly going to get MAYBE 10 games out of? 

I think that’s why he’s testing FA.  Ballard has a number in mind and Blackmon has his.  I would bet that they have an agreement where if Blackmon gets an offer he wants to sign he will bring it to Ballard to respond.  Since he was drafted by the Colts I would expect Ballard has some leeway on what he will pay.  So if Blackmon sighs elsewhere it will be interesting to see what he received.  I think the Colts bringing in another safety yesterday is part of a fall back plan.  At least for SS.  Cross has shown improvement at SS.  So Bringing back Blackmon makes sense to me if they both are happy with the contract.

[AKB]

9 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

@Superman

 

 

Question for you.   You explained things very well last night.  But I’d like to ask WHY do the Colts do this?   What benefit do they gain.   I listed all the players that received the standard signing bonus, so why didn’t the Colts do the same with the 4 players I listed who received a 0 SB? 
 

Thanks in advance….

does it have to do with what year the bonus gets applied? 

[DougDew]

42 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

If Holder is to be believed, and I know some here don’t and that’s fine, he reported Ballard did try to get Hunter and had interest in Sneed dating back to the combine but they lost out on Hunter and decided not to go after Sneed after he was tagged.  After that happened he pivoted to a different plan which was to bring back his own that he wasn’t going to do, particularly Grover and Moore.  So it sounds like Ballard did try to do something different this off-season and it didn’t work out.  Will what he did work?  No idea.  All I can do is watch and see and react based on what I see.  

I don't want to get into a Ballard-bash fest.  My beef with him has been 5 or 6 years running relative to roster construction and the lack of dynamic players at important positions, something that Superman is explaining well.  I don't have issues with anything else or necessarily any individual player decisions.

 

But your post sounds like Ballard should get points for trying, and there is some sort of insurmountable force that prevents his efforts from succeeding, so give him a pass.

 

If he targeted Hunter, why isn't Hunter here?

 

If he thought about Sneed, why did he stop thinking about adding him?

 

Money?...if he moved on from those to sign Grover and Moore, and maybe Franklin, would there be enough money for Hunter and Sneed if he didn't sign those three?   Take their money and give it to the other two.

 

Ballard has to land players, either FA or draft.  He can't just try (only as hard as he wants to).  JMO.

[stitches]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I didn't want to distract from the main point, but the other element was getting the HC right. The Rams had Goff as a rookie, he looked awful, they won four games. Then they hire McVay, suddenly Goff looks like an MVP candidate, and they win 11 games. 

 

And then, they got aggressive: traded a 5th for Talib; traded a 1st and 6th for Brandin Cooks and a 4th; signed Suh for one year, $14m. They went to the SB in 2018 and lost.

 

And the following offseason, they got rid of those players. Traded Talib and a 5th to the Dolphins for a 7th; traded Cooks and a 4th to the Texans for a 2nd; and Suh went to the Bucs (after the draft, screwing the Rams out of what could have been a 4th round comp pick). There had been other players along the way -- Dante Fowler, Clay Matthews, etc. This is something that people don't pay attention to with those Rams -- they strategically dipped in and out of some of those bigger contracts, recouping some of their draft capital and freeing up cap space.

Oh yeah, the coaching hire is extremely important. 

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

I'd also push back on the idea that they were a legit contending team prior to 2021. They missed the playoffs in 2019, finished 2nd in the division in 2020 and lost in the divisional round, and then went back to the SB in 2021. They were basically a fringe playoff team those two years before they got Stafford, despite their aggression in other areas. They had laid a foundation as a solid team, but they weren't a legit contender every year.

 

Pushing into that top tier is much harder than becoming a fringe playoff team. And winning the SB is another story. But I don't think that the way a team spends money -- whether free agency, trades, or retaining your own players -- has a meaningful correlation to overall success. What matters is the quality/production of the players on which you spend, which to a certain extent connects to the positions those players play. 

For some reason I had remembered their stretch leading into their SB as a bit more impressive than it was. On the bolded - I guess the more current and better example would be the 49ers? They spent a ton of resources on pass-rushers, weapons(retaining Kittle after hitting on him in the draft, WRs - 1st and 2nd round picks, pass-catching RB in McCaffrey ), best LT in the league... and they did try to address the QB too... and might have gotten there in a roundabout way... 

[GoColts8818]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I don't want to get into a Ballard-bash fest.  My beef with him has been 5 or 6 years running relative to roster construction and the lack of dynamic players at important positions, something that Superman is explaining well.  I don't have issues with anything else or necessarily any individual player decisions.

 

But your post sounds like Ballard should get points for trying, and there is some sort of guiding force or environment issue that keeps him from being able to succeed with his tries, so give him a pass.

 

If he targeted Hunter, why isn't Hunter here?

 

If he thought about Sneed, why did he stop thinking about adding him?

 

Money?...if he moved on from those to sign Grover and Moore, and maybe Franklin, would there be enough money for Hunter and Sneed if he didn't sign those three?   Take their money and give it to the other two.

 

Ballard has to land players, either FA or draft.  He can't just try (only as hard as he wants to).  JMO.

Not saying give him points for anything.  Like I said I’ll cast judgement after everything plays out.  I was just saying if you believe Holder he did try to do something different so this wasn’t the original plan.  It is what it is that’s all.  
 

As for Hunter it was reported he’s from Houston and wanted to go back home.  Nothing Ballard or anyone could do about that.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

@Superman

 

 

Question for you.   You explained things very well last night.  But I’d like to ask WHY do the Colts do this?   What benefit do they gain.   I listed all the players that received the standard signing bonus, so why didn’t the Colts do the same with the 4 players I listed who received a 0 SB? 
 

Thanks in advance….

 

I think the players who received the larger signing bonuses were all re-signed during a specific period in the Colts team building, when the cap situation was a little less flexible. They had to re-sign their 2018 draft class, and they were spending a lot of money on QBs (side point, but the Colts spent a lot of money on QBs between 2020 and 2022, despite no one sticking). Also, remember that the salary cap went down in 2021, and there was only a modest increase in 2022.

 

So using the more typical signing bonus structure, they were able to have lower initial cap hits for those guys, while backloading higher cap hits -- particularly for Nelson, Leonard, and Smith. Nelson's cap hits went $10.2m, $12.2m, and in Year 3 goes up to $25.2m. Similar progression with the other two, with lower cap hits the first two years, and then a big increase in Year 3. 

 

Compare with Buckner's first three years: $23.4m, $17m, $16m. 

I think the Colts prefer the no/small signing bonus approach because it keeps the year cash outlay closer to the yearly cap figure, and that's a primary reason why the Colts are never in a salary cap pinch. They seem to only use larger signing bonuses when they have an immediate need for cap flexibility in the first couple years of a contract.

 

For the player, it doesn't necessarily make a difference. His cash flow can be the same, and the team can use staggered/rolling guarantees to give the player some future security.

 

The contracts for Taylor, Pittman, Moore, Franklin, Stewart, are kind of a hybrid between the two. They have signing bonuses, but not too big. However, the shorter length of these contracts makes it difficult to backload the cap hits even with the signing bonuses.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, stitches said:

For some reason I had remembered their stretch leading into their SB as a bit more impressive than it was. On the bolded - I guess the more current and better example would be the 49ers? They spent a ton of resources on pass-rushers, weapons(retaining Kittle after hitting on him in the draft, WRs - 1st and 2nd round picks, pass-catching RB in McCaffrey ), best LT in the league... and they did try to address the QB too... and might have gotten there in a roundabout way... 

 

Yeah, I think the Rams made some flashy moves, but it gets exaggerated a little bit, especially when you look at how long some of those players stay on the roster.

 

The Niners have kept their core together longer, mostly because they've a stable QB expense, then Garoppolo took a pay cut, and eventually he left. And last year, they played the rental game with Chase Young, only paid him $1m, and it cost them a 3rd rounder. And still, they got really good QB play this year.

[AKB]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think the players who received the larger signing bonuses were all re-signed during a specific period in the Colts team building, when the cap situation was a little less flexible. They had to re-sign their 2018 draft class, and they were spending a lot of money on QBs (side point, but the Colts spent a lot of money on QBs between 2020 and 2022, despite no one sticking). Also, remember that the salary cap went down in 2021, and there was only a modest increase in 2022.

 

So using the more typical signing bonus structure, they were able to have lower initial cap hits for those guys, while backloading higher cap hits -- particularly for Nelson, Leonard, and Smith. Nelson's cap hits went $10.2m, $12.2m, and in Year 3 goes up to $25.2m. Similar progression with the other two, with lower cap hits the first two years, and then a big increase in Year 3. 

 

Compare with Buckner's first three years: $23.4m, $17m, $16m. 

I think the Colts prefer the no/small signing bonus approach because it keeps the year cash outlay closer to the yearly cap figure, and that's a primary reason why the Colts are never in a salary cap pinch. They seem to only use larger signing bonuses when they have an immediate need for cap flexibility in the first couple years of a contract.

 

For the player, it doesn't necessarily make a difference. His cash flow can be the same, and the team can use staggered/rolling guarantees to give the player some future security.

 

The contracts for Taylor, Pittman, Moore, Franklin, Stewart, are kind of a hybrid between the two. They have signing bonuses, but not too big. However, the shorter length of these contracts makes it difficult to backload the cap hits even with the signing bonuses.

well done.

 

in short, they backloaded a lot of the 2018 draftees, buck had kind of an outlier of a frontload- and as our cap has been increasing, we've settled most recently into a middle-ground area.

[ProblChld32]

29 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I think that’s why he’s testing FA.  Ballard has a number in mind and Blackmon has his.  I would bet that they have an agreement where if Blackmon gets an offer he wants to sign he will bring it to Ballard to respond.  Since he was drafted by the Colts I would expect Ballard has some leeway on what he will pay.  So if Blackmon sighs elsewhere it will be interesting to see what he received.  I think the Colts bringing in another safety yesterday is part of a fall back plan.  At least for SS.  Cross has shown improvement at SS.  So Bringing back Blackmon makes sense to me if they both are happy with the contract.

Why do you think bringing him back makes sense? Do you know how many games he has missed over the span of his career? I’m almost certain that if Ballard 100% whole heartedly wanted him back he would have been back. Kenny , Grove , Pittman even Lewis all were retained. Even  tho they had offers elsewhere. I think they’re ok losing Blackman in FA. Their are capable guys available who can fill that void. Like I said we know what we get with Julian but his health is the largest issue. You don’t pay a guy knowing he is injury prone and has a history of it. Why do you think Hooker left? I’m almost certain they don’t want to chance it. 

[Dr. T]

I think that Ballard's biggest recent mistake (a few yers ago) was singing Matt freaking Ryan with his expensive contract instead of picking up Baker Mayfield who wanted to come here for much cheaper. But if the bonehead Ryan decision did not happen, we may still have Reich as coach and not have had the opportunity to draft Richardson.

I guess my point is that whoever evaluated Ryan vs Baker at the time could not have been more wrong and Ballard as GM signed off on it. 

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, AKB said:

well done.

 

in short, they backloaded a lot of the 2018 draftees, buck had kind of an outlier of a frontload- and as our cap has been increasing, we've settled most recently into a middle-ground area.

 

Agreed, except I don't think Buckner was an outlier. They did the same with Moore and Kelly, Doyle had a smaller bonus, etc. I think that's their preferred structure, and it was the backloaded structure they used later on that was the outlier. 

 

They've used the hybrid structure at various times over the years, but usually for shorter contracts.

 

The other advantage of the frontloaded structure is that it gives the team greater flexibility to restructure in the future, if they want/need to. That's been rare with the Colts -- but they did restructure Buckner last year, and Ryan the year before. Compared to the backloaded structure, now if you restructure, you're making it even more backloaded, maybe need to use void years, etc. The frontloaded structure keeps more options on the table.

[AKB]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Agreed, except I don't think Buckner was an outlier. They did the same with Moore and Kelly, Doyle had a smaller bonus, etc. I think that's their preferred structure, and it was the backloaded structure they used later on that was the outlier. 

 

They've used the hybrid structure at various times over the years, but usually for shorter contracts.

 

The other advantage of the frontloaded structure is that it gives the team greater flexibility to restructure in the future, if they want/need to. That's been rare with the Colts -- but they did restructure Buckner last year, and Ryan the year before. Compared to the backloaded structure, now if you restructure, you're making it even more backloaded, maybe need to use void years, etc. The frontloaded structure keeps more options on the table.

so how did this shake out when we just cut Leonard? was it to our advantage?

[RollerColt]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Agreed, except I don't think Buckner was an outlier. They did the same with Moore and Kelly, Doyle had a smaller bonus, etc. I think that's their preferred structure, and it was the backloaded structure they used later on that was the outlier. 

 

They've used the hybrid structure at various times over the years, but usually for shorter contracts.

 

The other advantage of the frontloaded structure is that it gives the team greater flexibility to restructure in the future, if they want/need to. That's been rare with the Colts -- but they did restructure Buckner last year, and Ryan the year before. Compared to the backloaded structure, now if you restructure, you're making it even more backloaded, maybe need to use void years, etc. The frontloaded structure keeps more options on the table.

So essentially we've been doing the opposite of New Orleans? 

[AKB]

The anti ballard talk on other colts forums, in particular r/colts is becoming very toxic towards ballard and his FA approach. from what I'm hearing, a big portion of the fan base is gonna be chanting fire ballard if we fluke out this year. 

 

he needs to fix the secondary, otherwise it's gonna look real bad on him 

[GoColts8818]

2 minutes ago, AKB said:

The anti ballard talk on other colts forums, in particular r/colts is becoming very toxic towards ballard and his FA approach. from what I'm hearing, a big portion of the fan base is gonna be chanting fire ballard if we fluke out this year. 

 

he needs to fix the secondary, otherwise it's gonna look real bad on him 

Unless his plan works.  Then all will be forgiven.  That’s why I am just going to let things playout and cast judgement once I see how things look on the field.  Not like I can do anything about it.

[Superman]

Just now, Dr. T said:

I think that Ballard's biggest recent mistake (a few yers ago) was singing Matt freaking Ryan with his expensive contract instead of picking up Baker Mayfield who wanted to come here for much cheaper. But if the bonehead Ryan decision did not happen, we may still have Reich as coach and not have had the opportunity to draft Richardson.

I guess my point is that whoever evaluated Ryan vs Baker at the time could not have been more wrong and Ballard as GM signed off on it. 

 

I don't know... Baker Mayfield didn't have a strong 2022, and I think a big part of it is that he still wasn't 100% physically (big shoulder recovery at the end of 2021), but also partly because he wound up in dysfunctional Carolina with Matt Rhule. You're assuming we get 2023 Mayfield in 2022, with Reich, and I think that's a big leap.

 

More likely, IMO, we get a substandard version of Mayfield in 2022, coached by a shell-shocked and chastened Frank Reich, and it looks similar to the dried out husk of Matt Ryan that we had anyway. 

 

It would have been cheaper, especially since the Browns paid most of Mayfield's 2022 salary. And Matt Ryan was bad enough that it's not hard to imagine Mayfield being better. But not that much better, and certainly not the version of Mayfield that just earned a big contract.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, Dr. T said:

I think that Ballard's biggest recent mistake (a few yers ago) was singing Matt freaking Ryan with his expensive contract instead of picking up Baker Mayfield who wanted to come here for much cheaper. But if the bonehead Ryan decision did not happen, we may still have Reich as coach and not have had the opportunity to draft Richardson.

I guess my point is that whoever evaluated Ryan vs Baker at the time could not have been more wrong and Ballard as GM signed off on it. 

Yeah, I thought about that too.  Folks seem to forget about that non-signing, like it was a sure thing good move to not sign a guy who wanted to be here too.   I guess there were some rumors of an attitude problem or something while in CLE.  Didn't seem to be an issue when he was in LAR or now TB.

[BlackTiger]

9 minutes ago, Dr. T said:

I guess my point is that whoever evaluated Ryan vs Baker at the time could not have been more wrong and Ballard as GM signed off on it. 

Im sure chris was had to play a big role in that but nobody seemed more excited about it than Jim Irsay.  Jim was all in on Matt

[RollerColt]

I fully admit I was on the Mayfield nonbeliever train... 

 

I was also expecting Ryan to at least be somewhat capable with the offense, but the line did him 0 favors and his arm essentially stuck the fork in. 

[AKB]

Just now, GoColts8818 said:

Unless his plan works.  Then all will be forgiven.  That’s why I am just going to let things playout and cast judgement once I see how things look on the field.  Not like I can do anything about it.

Unless his plan works. --> That seems to be the complaint. the plan hasn't changed and has remained the same for 7 years, bearing nothing. if we don't get a CB1, its likely that our defense is towards last in the league, for the 3rd straight year in a row.  He has kept the same mantra of resigning his own, whilst filling holes in the draft. My prediction? We draft a late round, high RAS corner, and end up 28th again in PPG. 

 

 That’s why I am just going to let things play out --> we do have the draft.. and some budget FAs left, so maybe we sign a guy and get some value, maybe we draft a corner in rd 1 or 2. But what happens when Brents gets injured again? We are back to a rookie and a 7th rounder at outside corner. . . if something like this happens again, which seems very likely given ballards MO, he will get fired. There's no way you can repeat the same mistakes over and over. The only thing that might save him from not solving the CB issue is if he scapegoats Gus Bradley, which might buy him 1 additional year. Which, by the way, Ballard has been a master at balancing action vs. nonaction to dictate expectations, and thus his expectation of performance. 

 

Not like I can do anything about it. -->  fan sentiment does matter. 

 

[richard pallo]

12 minutes ago, ProblChld32 said:

Why do you think bringing him back makes sense? Do you know how many games he has missed over the span of his career? I’m almost certain that if Ballard 100% whole heartedly wanted him back he would have been back. Kenny , Grove , Pittman even Lewis all were retained. Even  tho they had offers elsewhere. I think they’re ok losing Blackman in FA. Their are capable guys available who can fill that void. Like I said we know what we get with Julian but his health is the largest issue. You don’t pay a guy knowing he is injury prone and has a history of it. Why do you think Hooker left? I’m almost certain they don’t want to chance it. 

Because last year he moved back to SS and was having his best year as a Colt until an injury ended his season.  He led the team with four interceptions if I’m not mistaken before the injury.   He’s not back because there is a difference of opinion on the value of the contract.  Injuries are part of the equation I would think.  Hooker left and has played well with the Cowboys.  Every players circumstance is different.  He might not be back we will see.  I’m hoping any offer he receives comes in close to what the Colts offered and he returns.  

[AKB]

Just now, richard pallo said:

Because last year he moved back to SS and was having his best year as a Colt until an injury ended his season.  He led the team with four interceptions if I’m not mistaken before the injury.   He’s not back because there is a difference of opinion on the value of the contract.  Injuries are part of the equation I would think.  Hooker left and has played well with the Cowboys.  Every players circumstance is different.  He might not be back we will see.  I’m hoping any offer he receives comes in close to what the Colts offered and he returns.  

has blackmon ever had a season without a big injury? or a season where he didn't miss X amount of games. that's gotta be the main issue with him

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, AKB said:

so how did this shake out when we just cut Leonard? was it to our advantage?

 

We cut Leonard in Year 3, and he got paid all of his salaries for the first three years. We had a $19.8m cap hit for him in 2023 (about $6.5m of that was guaranteed salary after he was cut), and we have an $8m dead cap hit for him in 2024. 

 

It wasn't to our advantage, we just have to account for cash he was paid several years ago, whereas with the frontloaded structure we would have already accounted for that cash. Every dollar eventually hits the cap, your structure determines when it hits the cap.

 

4 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

So essentially we've been doing the opposite of New Orleans? 

 

Yes. And it's even worse for New Orleans because they're compelled into continuing to pay and roster players that are obviously no longer living up to their contracts. They've dug themselves a deep hole, and they won't really be out of it until they go through another cost shedding process next year.

 

And they have nothing to show for it.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, AKB said:

Unless his plan works. --> That seems to be the complaint. the plan hasn't changed and has remained the same for 7 years,

 

I don't think this is entirely true.

 

They tried to lay a foundation that would reach a peak somewhere around 2019-2021. The 2018 class was really good, they had a specific free agency plan in 2019, and then Luck retired. They pivoted in 2020, but still made some aggressive moves, and had a pretty good roster. Not perfect, not necessarily my preferred roster construction, but good enough to win 11 games with Philip Rivers. We tied with the Titans, and split 1-1, but they had a tie breaker on us. River retired. In 2021, we were 9-6 with Carson Wentz, and then fell apart.

 

I don't know if the Colts would have broken through into the top tier of the AFC during that stretch, but we didn't get to see the plan fully materialize. And then they started scrambling for veteran QBs.

 

At some point around 2022 or 2023, even with Luck, the Colts probably would have needed a mini reset. 

 

My point is that the plan has not been the same for seven years. Ballard's methods haven't changed much, but the plan in 2019 was much different than it was in 2022. And it's different now.

[DougDew]

17 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

I fully admit I was on the Mayfield nonbeliever train... 

 

I was also expecting Ryan to at least be somewhat capable with the offense, but the line did him 0 favors and his arm essentially stuck the fork in. 

The issue is the speed with which Ballard seemingly discarded the inexpensive Mayfield (I suppose his "attitude problem" might have seemed to close to a Wentz thing?) ....but then quickly pounced on the expensive Ryan....Geez.

 

Its like a batter leaving his bat on his shoulder to take an 80 mph pitch down the middle for a strike, only to then whiff at a 95 mph hard slider two feet off the plate.

[richard pallo]

2 minutes ago, AKB said:

has blackmon ever had a season with a big injury? or a season where he didn't miss X amount of games. that's gotta be the main issue with him

Nowadays players miss time all the time.  Injuries are big issues with many players throughout the league.  17 games is a long season.  And 3 preseason games before that.  He definitely has missed games as has many players have.  That’s why having strong backups are necessary throughout the team.  Blackmon is a starting caliber SS.  His injury history should be reflected in any offer he receives.  I’m sure it’s reflected in Ballards offer.  So it will be interesting to see how this plays out for him and the team.

[RollerColt]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

We cut Leonard in Year 3, and he got paid all of his salaries for the first three years. We had a $19.8m cap hit for him in 2023 (about $6.5m of that was guaranteed salary after he was cut), and we have an $8m dead cap hit for him in 2024. 

 

It wasn't to our advantage, we just have to account for cash he was paid several years ago, whereas with the frontloaded structure we would have already accounted for that cash. Every dollar eventually hits the cap, your structure determines when it hits the cap.

 

 

Yes. And it's even worse for New Orleans because they're compelled into continuing to pay and roster players that are obviously no longer living up to their contracts. They've dug themselves a deep hole, and they won't really be out of it until they go through another cost shedding process next year.

 

And they have nothing to show for it.

It really feels like the ultimate universal answer for anything in life is to achieve balance. Even for managing a team. 

[ADnum1]

14 minutes ago, AKB said:

Unless his plan works. --> That seems to be the complaint. the plan hasn't changed and has remained the same for 7 years, bearing nothing. if we don't get a CB1, its likely that our defense is towards last in the league, for the 3rd straight year in a row.  He has kept the same mantra of resigning his own, whilst filling holes in the draft. My prediction? We draft a late round, high RAS corner, and end up 28th again in PPG. 

 

 That’s why I am just going to let things play out --> we do have the draft.. and some budget FAs left, so maybe we sign a guy and get some value, maybe we draft a corner in rd 1 or 2. But what happens when Brents gets injured again? We are back to a rookie and a 7th rounder at outside corner. . . if something like this happens again, which seems very likely given ballards MO, he will get fired. There's no way you can repeat the same mistakes over and over. The only thing that might save him from not solving the CB issue is if he scapegoats Gus Bradley, which might buy him 1 additional year. Which, by the way, Ballard has been a master at balancing action vs. nonaction to dictate expectations, and thus his expectation of performance. 

 

Not like I can do anything about it. -->  fan sentiment does matter. 

 

The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result...

[RollerColt]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

The issue is the speed with which Ballard seemingly dispensed with Mayfield...I mean we needed a starter and he was available (I suppose his "attitude problem" might have seemed to close to a Wentz thing?) ....but then quickly pounced on Ryan....Geez.

 

Its like a batter leaving his bat on his shoulder to take an 80 mph pitch down the middle for a strike, only to then turn around an whiff at a 95 mph hard slider two feet off the plate.

Another angle to consider: what were Irsay's thoughts on Baker? He definitely has shown that when it comes to the QB question, he's fully involved in the decision making process. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, RollerColt said:

Another angle to consider: what were Irsay's thoughts on Baker? He definitely has shown that when it comes to the QB question, he's fully involved in the decision making process. 

 

Yup. I think after 2021, the Colts wanted/needed a "grown up" at QB. And I don't think Baker was the type of personality they wanted to get involved with at that time.

 

Matt Ryan was the "grown up." The day he arrived in Indy and got introduced, I told someone that he looked like the new GM, not the new QB. Huge contrast in look and presence, compared to Wentz the year before (nothing wrong with the way Wentz presented, it was just very different from Ryan). 

 

Too bad Matt Ryan couldn't play QB anymore.

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

Another angle to consider: what were Irsay's thoughts on Baker? He definitely has shown that when it comes to the QB question, he's fully involved in the decision making process. 

He probably thought Baker wasn't much different than Wentz.  They praised Ryan for his maturity and leadership, and those were supposedly Baker's shortcomings.  Which has apparently not been a problem since CLE. 

 

I don't buy into that stuff about attitude or personality.  To me, it usually sounds like an agenda to run people off for some other reason.

[John Waylon]

Bargain bin bandaid Ballard and his little buddy the binder. Just keep throwing lime green RAS bars at the problems and hope for the best.
 

 

[RollerColt]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yup. I think after 2021, the Colts wanted/needed a "grown up" at QB. And I don't think Baker was the type of personality they wanted to get involved with at that time.

 

Matt Ryan was the "grown up." The day he arrived in Indy and got introduced, I told someone that he looked like the new GM, not the new QB. Huge contrast in look and presence, compared to Wentz the year before (nothing wrong with the way Wentz presented, it was just very different from Ryan). 

 

Too bad Matt Ryan couldn't play QB anymore.

I believe they were even throwing around the comparisons of him being "Peyton-like" in the building. They were obviously hoping to achieve something similar to what Denver did by picking up the aging vet who needs one last shot to prove the doubters wrong. 

 

It just didn't work out. 

[AKB]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think this is entirely true.

 

They tried to lay a foundation that would reach a peak somewhere around 2019-2021. The 2018 class was really good, they had a specific free agency plan in 2019, and then Luck retired. They pivoted in 2020, but still made some aggressive moves, and had a pretty good roster. Not perfect, not necessarily my preferred roster construction, but good enough to win 11 games with Philip Rivers. We tied with the Titans, and split 1-1, but they had a tie breaker on us. River retired. In 2021, we were 9-6 with Carson Wentz, and then fell apart.

 

I don't know if the Colts would have broken through into the top tier of the AFC during that stretch, but we didn't get to see the plan fully materialize. And then they started scrambling for veteran QBs.

 

At some point around 2022 or 2023, even with Luck, the Colts probably would have needed a mini reset. 

 

My point is that the plan has not been the same for seven years. Ballard's methods haven't changed much, but the plan in 2019 was much different than it was in 2022. And it's different now.

So I put a lot of thoughts into one simple sentence, that doesn't represent the complaint that most anti-ballard fans have. Sure, each year has its personality traits, but overall his BBB FA approach, combined with drafting to FILL needs, with highly athletic but not overall spectacular players. He does a very good job at drafting players that provide value, and he plugs them into spots where the roster appears deficient. (Ryan Kelly, Wentz, Nelson, Leonard, Franklin, Paye, Dayo, Buckner) all picks, some first round to fill a gap

 

The first example you give is the Rivers year. That was the peak of our roster under Ballard, if Luck had not retired, and we had him grow another year with that team, that was our year. Hilton, Zaire, and Speed have all talked about it on his podcast. 

 

I disagree that his plan has not been the same for seven years. If we are gonna zoom in on the ridges and humps, we can find a difference between each season and strategy. But Ballard has not changed. He took his sweet time signing over-the-hill QBs and old QBs and avoided drafting a QB (which he has publicly revealed multiple times is because of the accountability that often follows taking a QB with your top pick), and now he's drafted a QB with very limited film, whom just suffered a serious shoulder injury, and we are now on to another .500 season most likely. 

 

I suppose if .500 and ALMOST making the playoffs, or ALMOST winning the division is what fans are into, then sure, Ballard is great. But overall I believe, and many other fans believe that Ballard hasn't changed much, if at all. And that the differences in each approach are more circumstantial than belief system-dependent. 

[DattMavis]

2 minutes ago, AKB said:

So I put a lot of thoughts into one simple sentence, that doesn't represent the complaint that most anti-ballard fans have. Sure, each year has its personality traits, but overall his BBB FA approach, combined with drafting to FILL needs, with highly athletic but not overall spectacular players. He does a very good job at drafting players that provide value, and he plugs them into spots where the roster appears deficient. (Ryan Kelly, Wentz, Nelson, Leonard, Franklin, Paye, Dayo, Buckner) all first-round picks to fill a gap in the roster. 

 

The first example you give is the Rivers year. That was the peak of our roster under Ballard, if Luck had not retired, and we had him grow another year with that team, that was our year. Hilton, Zaire, and Speed have all talked about it on his podcast. 

 

I disagree that his plan has not been the same for seven years. If we are gonna zoom in on the ridges and humps, we can find a difference between each season and strategy. But Ballard has not changed. He took his sweet time signing over-the-hill QBs and old QBs and avoided drafting a QB (which he has publicly revealed multiple times is because of the accountability that often follows taking a QB with your top pick), and now he's drafted a QB with very limited film, whom just suffered a serious shoulder injury, and we are now on to another .500 season most likely. 

 

I suppose if .500 and ALMOST making the playoffs, or ALMOST winning the division is what fans are into, then sure, Ballard is great. But overall I believe, and many other fans believe that Ballard hasn't changed much, if at all. And that the differences in each approach are more circumstantial than belief system-dependent. 

You had me until the AR doubting. The kid is 21 years old, and he has more athletic ability than probably anyone in the league. Let him heal, teach him to protect himself, and from the glimpses I saw last year, he's a top 5 QB in a few years. 

[AKB]

Just now, DattMavis said:

You had me until the AR doubting. The kid is 21 years old, and he has more athletic ability than probably anyone in the league. Let him heal, teach him to protect himself, and from the glimpses I saw last year, he's a top 5 QB in a few years. 

It's not doubt, its skepticism. This should come along with all rookie QBs, especially those who have limited snaps and just suffered a serious shoulder injury we've seen before in a great QB. 

 

I whole heartedly want AR to succeed, and I believe Ballard's job depends on it. 

[GoColts8818]

38 minutes ago, AKB said:

Unless his plan works. --> That seems to be the complaint. the plan hasn't changed and has remained the same for 7 years, bearing nothing. if we don't get a CB1, its likely that our defense is towards last in the league, for the 3rd straight year in a row.  He has kept the same mantra of resigning his own, whilst filling holes in the draft. My prediction? We draft a late round, high RAS corner, and end up 28th again in PPG. 

 

 That’s why I am just going to let things play out --> we do have the draft.. and some budget FAs left, so maybe we sign a guy and get some value, maybe we draft a corner in rd 1 or 2. But what happens when Brents gets injured again? We are back to a rookie and a 7th rounder at outside corner. . . if something like this happens again, which seems very likely given ballards MO, he will get fired. There's no way you can repeat the same mistakes over and over. The only thing that might save him from not solving the CB issue is if he scapegoats Gus Bradley, which might buy him 1 additional year. Which, by the way, Ballard has been a master at balancing action vs. nonaction to dictate expectations, and thus his expectation of performance. 

 

Not like I can do anything about it. -->  fan sentiment does matter. 

 

Irsay isn’t going to fire Ballard because the fans want it.  Fans sentiment doesn’t matter nearly as much as fans like to think it does.

[AKB]

Just now, GoColts8818 said:

Irsay isn’t going to fire Ballard because the fans want it.  Fans sentiment doesn’t matter nearly as much as fans like to think it does.

no, but he will fire him for not producing anything substantial. 

 

fan sentiment, especially in bigger markets, does have an influence though. especially with the power of social media these days. we are one of the few teams that would've stood by Ballard for this long.

 

would another team hire him? sure, would most teams sit with him for as long as we have? nope

[John Waylon]

2 minutes ago, DattMavis said:

You had me until the AR doubting. The kid is 21 years old, and he has more athletic ability than probably anyone in the league. Let him heal, teach him to protect himself, and from the glimpses I saw last year, he's a top 5 QB in a few years. 

It’s entirely justified. I love Richardson. I love what I’ve seen, I believe in him as the guy. 
 

But we need to see him on the field this year. He was injured in every game he played last year.
 

All 4 of them. 😑
 

It’s still early to crown him as the savior. We need to see he’s durable enough to earn wear the crown, and that’s a very real and valid concern heading into this season. 
 

Hopefully he is. Would love to see it. Would love to see him light the league on fire this year. 
 

However, that’s not a given, and in the event (just in the hypothetical event,) that it doesn’t work out with him, Ballard has done nothing to make this team any better than it was in December when they lost the division to the Texans. 
 

The a Texans who actually have done things to get better since taking the division away from us in our house in December. 

[DougDew]

44 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think this is entirely true.

 

They tried to lay a foundation that would reach a peak somewhere around 2019-2021. The 2018 class was really good, they had a specific free agency plan in 2019, and then Luck retired. They pivoted in 2020, but still made some aggressive moves, and had a pretty good roster. Not perfect, not necessarily my preferred roster construction, but good enough to win 11 games with Philip Rivers. We tied with the Titans, and split 1-1, but they had a tie breaker on us. River retired. In 2021, we were 9-6 with Carson Wentz, and then fell apart.

 

I don't know if the Colts would have broken through into the top tier of the AFC during that stretch, but we didn't get to see the plan fully materialize. And then they started scrambling for veteran QBs.

 

At some point around 2022 or 2023, even with Luck, the Colts probably would have needed a mini reset. 

 

My point is that the plan has not been the same for seven years. Ballard's methods haven't changed much, but the plan in 2019 was much different than it was in 2022. And it's different now.

But even if the Colts would have had Luck through 2023, Ballard displayed little urgency to replace TY and AC who were obviously not going to be around very long.  And he never found an EDGE.  Those are 3 key positional issues that Luck would have had to play through, unless there is a scenario that I don't see where Ballard would have committed more urgency to those positions.  Rivers, Wentz, and Ryan were mainly salary cap resource uses and Ballard doesn't seem to sign high priced positional players via free agency.  So its not like allocating the salary cap to QBs..even if Luck was here....made a dent in how he approached TY, AC, and EDGE.

 

How he chose to address the LT position all of these years is still really bizarre to me.  And in the end, he filled it with his second 3rd round pick, drafting Raimann behind even Woods.