Colts offseason discussion / Ballard Grievances (merge)

[Happy2BeHere]

Thread title here should be “Colt FA News…and 132 other random rants”  

[John Waylon]

2 hours ago, compuls1v3 said:

As exciting as some of the FAs are that we missed out on, the truth is the jury is still out on Richardson.   When he gets us to the playoffs, I'll expect some changes in FA moves.

How is he ever going to get us anywhere when we’re giving up ground in the division and just running it back with a team that wasn’t good enough to make it already?

 

“Let’s see if you’re the real deal, kid. Here’s a team we’ve done nothing to help, now go take them to the playoffs!”

What? No. 

 

Make the team better and give him all the help you can. You don’t hold off on fixing obvious flaws with your team until you have a QB. you stunt the growth of a QB by throwing him out there and saying “yeah we know multiple units on this team are the %s and need fixed.”

 

Are we really ok with wasting a QB on a rookie deal because we waited to see what he turned into before we worried about getting some starting corners and safeties? 
 

Thats silly. These things are not mutually exclusive and can (and should, furthermore,) be done independently of the other. 

[Superman]

4 hours ago, Solid84 said:

To me, the hiring of Patridge is a desperate attempt by Ballard and Steichen to get more from a position group there’s been invested waaay too much in without anything to show for it. I fully expect more of the same. 

 

There are a lot of extremes in this statement. So before I go further, I just want to know how much is hyperbole, and how much you really meant.

 

What's desperate about moving on from a position coach for an underperforming unit? Shouldn't a team hold each position coach accountable? And why do you say there's been nothing to show for what's been invested in the DL? 

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

“Let’s see if you’re the real deal, kid. Here’s a team we’ve done nothing to help, now go take them to the playoffs!”

 

What's your take on the offense from last year?

 

I personally don't think it's that far off. I want another WR who can make explosive plays, and I don't think that player was available in free agency, so I always expected that to be a draft target. I want OL depth. And I like our young TEs, but wouldn't mind a potential upgrade at the top; I'm a fan of Woods, if he's healthy.

 

Other than that, I think the offense going up a gear is mostly dependent on the QB.

 

What would you have wanted them to do on offense in free agency?

[BlackTiger]

It was a weak class, there were not too many moves I wanted us to make 

 

It was re sign our own or let them go so we get worse.  I looked at FA trackers and it seems a lot of teams spent big re signing their own too with a few big names changing teams.

 

The sneed deal could have made us better but thats a dead horse/colt.  Cousins to the Falcons is one to watch and I like Barkley to the Eagles

 

Pittman and Stewart took a big chunk of our cap and i wanted them back

[DougDew]

57 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

How is he ever going to get us anywhere when we’re giving up ground in the division and just running it back with a team that wasn’t good enough to make it already?

 

“Let’s see if you’re the real deal, kid. Here’s a team we’ve done nothing to help, now go take them to the playoffs!”

What? No. 

 

Make the team better and give him all the help you can. You don’t hold off on fixing obvious flaws with your team until you have a QB. you stunt the growth of a QB by throwing him out there and saying “yeah we know multiple units on this team are the %s and need fixed.”

 

Are we really ok with wasting a QB on a rookie deal because we waited to see what he turned into before we worried about getting some starting corners and safeties? 
 

Thats silly. These things are not mutually exclusive and can (and should, furthermore,) be done independently of the other. 

This needs to be placed into context.  Some of the discussion around Ballard or rookie deals is coming straight from the realization that Sneed is not going to be a Colt (we think as of today).  

 

That loss is now being argued that not spending a mid round pick and a lot of cap space on a cornerback is somehow an injustice to AR.   

 

What would be a more direct injustice to ARs development would be not having improved WR and TE play...or at least production....from last season.  And not having the top end explosive players there has been a lot of Ballard's problem for about 6 years.

 

Question:  Do you think that AP and the TE room are notably better at their jobs than our existing Cornerback room is at their jobs?  I would say no, they are not.  But, I would say that they are notably better than our Safety room. 

[jskinnz]

14 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

It was a weak class, there were not too many moves I wanted us to make 

 

It was re sign our own or let them go so we get worse.  I looked at FA trackers and it seems a lot of teams spent big re signing their own too with a few big names changing teams.

 

The sneed deal could have made us better but thats a dead horse/colt.  Cousins to the Falcons is one to watch and I like Barkley to the Eagles

 

Pittman and Stewart took a big chunk of our cap and i wanted them back

Agree with you on this. To me Sneed or Hunter were the only, significant needle movers.  But even then I am not sure those moves by themselves would have made the Colts better because both would have forced Indy to not resign some of their own key players.  And Sneed would have cost draft capital as well. 
 

 

 

[stitches]

38 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What's your take on the offense from last year?

 

I personally don't think it's that far off. I want another WR who can make explosive plays, and I don't think that player was available in free agency, so I always expected that to be a draft target. I want OL depth. And I like our young TEs, but wouldn't mind a potential upgrade at the top; I'm a fan of Woods, if he's healthy.

 

Other than that, I think the offense going up a gear is mostly dependent on the QB.

 

What would you have wanted them to do on offense in free agency?

I think the offense will go as far as AR takes it... BUT... if we want consistent excellence... rather than being just OK to good, we need better weapons for him. We need better/more dynamic WR, we need better TE... + yeah... better depth at OL. 

 

It's hard to say what would have brought us a better(or even good enough) WR or TE in FA. IMO we need to either trade up in the draft for one of the top 3 receivers or we need to try trading for Justin Jefferson or Aiyuk or someone of that sort. We kind of ... don't really need depth at those position. We already have depth. What we are lacking is top tier talent. 

 

On the TE front... Brock Bowers I guess is our best bet at getting elite player right now? Maybe Kyle Pitts if he's available for trade somehow? I have my doubts about Bowers but I cannot deny that he looks like a very good player who knows how to play the game and plays with force and determination. 

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, stitches said:

I think the offense will go as far as AR takes it... BUT... if we want consistent excellence... rather than being just OK to good, we need better weapons for him. We need better/more dynamic WR, we need better TE... + yeah... better depth at OL. 

 

It's hard to say what would have brought us a better(or even good enough) WR or TE in FA. IMO we need to either trade up in the draft for one of the top 3 receivers or we need to try trading for Justin Jefferson or Aiyuk or someone of that sort. We kind of ... don't really need depth at those position. We already have depth. What we are lacking is top tier talent. 

 

On the TE front... Brock Bowers I guess is our best bet at getting elite player right now? Maybe Kyle Pitts if he's available for trade somehow? I have my doubts about Bowers but I cannot deny that he looks like a very good player who knows how to play the game and plays with force and determination. 

With everybody saying that Bowers will not fall to us, I would not at all be surprised if Ballard trades up to get him.  

 

It would take a second round pick to trade up.  Do we need more young corners with that second round pick...or more young edges (that don't seem to work out when drafted there anyway).  With Downs, and Pitt on board, Ballard's words suggest he's not ready to give up on AP.   How do you get more "explosive" in Ballard's words. if you don't replace AP?  He's not replacing Downs, and obviously not Pitt.

 

With Grover and Davis signed, is Ballard going to pick a DT with that second round pick he would use to trade up for Bowers?

 

Not making a prediction.  But you heard it here first if Ballard does the out of character thing and gets more explosive by trading up for Bowers.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

With everybody saying that Bowers will not fall to us, I would not at all be surprised if Ballard trades up to get him.  

 

Do we need more young corners with that second round pick...or more young edges (that don't seem to work out when drafted there anyway).  With Downs, and Pitt on board, Ballard's words suggest he's not ready to give up on AP.   How do you get more "explosive" in Ballard's words. if you don't replace AP?  He's not replacing Downs, and obviously not Pitt.

 

With Grover and Davis signed, is Ballard going to pick a DT with that second round pick he would use to trade up for Bowers?

 

Not making a prediction.  But you heard it here first if Ballard does the out of character thing and gets more explosive by trading up for Bowers.

If he's going to be trading up I prefer he goes for one of the top WRs. I have no idea what his thoughts on the TE group is... he just spent a bunch of picks on TEs in consecutive drafts. I can absolutely see him being with that group the same way he is with his other pet projects - protective of his own picks and decision and determined to make them work until the very end. 

[GoColts8818]

25 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

Agree with you on this. To me Sneed or Hunter were the only, significant needle movers.  But even then I am not sure those moves by themselves would have made the Colts better because both would have forced Indy to not resign some of their own key players.  And Sneed would have cost draft capital as well. 
 

 

 

Yeah I think sometimes people just take for granted keeping your own means not opening up more holes you’ll have to fill.  I also think it’s worth remembering all teams have holes.  That’s what the salary cap does.  

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, stitches said:

I think the offense will go as far as AR takes it... BUT... if we want consistent excellence... rather than being just OK to good, we need better weapons for him. We need better/more dynamic WR, we need better TE... + yeah... better depth at OL. 

 

It's hard to say what would have brought us a better(or even good enough) WR or TE in FA. IMO we need to either trade up in the draft for one of the top 3 receivers or we need to try trading for Justin Jefferson or Aiyuk or someone of that sort. We kind of ... don't really need depth at those position. We already have depth. What we are lacking is top tier talent. 

 

On the TE front... Brock Bowers I guess is our best bet at getting elite player right now? Maybe Kyle Pitts if he's available for trade somehow? I have my doubts about Bowers but I cannot deny that he looks like a very good player who knows how to play the game and plays with force and determination. 

 

I see more potential in the TE room than you do. But let's say the draft went Bowers at #15, and at some point on Day 2 we get Walker, Leggette, whatever... now the offense has what we're looking for, right? (I think there are other TE possibilities on Day 2, by the way; and like you, I'm not sure how much I even like Bowers yet.) And that kind of talent wasn't really available in free agency, not without moving heaven and earth to get it, and we knew that wasn't on the table.

 

My point is that I expected the potential upgrades on offense to come in the draft, not free agency. I wanted a veteran WR and some veteran OL depth in FA, but those kind of players will be available for several weeks. It's also Ballard's plan to add those kind of players after the draft.

[throwing BBZ]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

With everybody saying that Bowers will not fall to us, I would not at all be surprised if Ballard trades up to get him.  

 

It would take a second round pick to trade up.  Do we need more young corners with that second round pick...or more young edges (that don't seem to work out when drafted there anyway).  With Downs, and Pitt on board, Ballard's words suggest he's not ready to give up on AP.   How do you get more "explosive" in Ballard's words. if you don't replace AP?  He's not replacing Downs, and obviously not Pitt.

 

With Grover and Davis signed, is Ballard going to pick a DT with that second round pick he would use to trade up for Bowers?

 

Not making a prediction.  But you heard it here first if Ballard does the out of character thing and gets more explosive by trading up for Bowers.

 

 We will get more explosive with a much better QB.

 One that can see over the line and doesn't duck and run at the sign of pressure.

 In the 2nd year of our Mastermind Steichen we will be refining our timing and execution. Smarter/Faster.

 We needs Woods.

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, stitches said:

If he's going to be trading up I prefer he goes for one of the top WRs. I have no idea what his thoughts on the TE group is... he just spent a bunch of picks on TEs in consecutive drafts. I can absolutely see him being with that group the same way he is with his other pet projects - protective of his own picks and decision and determined to make them work until the very end. 

His words of getting more explosive is going to force him to do something critical with a recent draft pick.  Either AP or Paye/Dayo, if it isn't the TEs.

 

Watch.  He'll probably get "more explosive" by adding a safety.   He let Blackmon go so you know he's already thinking about S at some point this offseason.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 We will get more explosive with a much better QB.

 One that can see over the line and doesn't duck and run at the sign of pressure.

 In the 2nd year of our Mastermind Steichen we will be refining our timing and execution. Smarter/Faster.

 We needs Woods.

Ah, okay.  So when Ballard said that he wants us to be more explosive, he meant just getting AR back.  I kinda thought he was implying adding another piece, but you might be right.  Getting AR back would technically fit the description.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I see more potential in the TE room than you do. But let's say the draft went Bowers at #15, and at some point on Day 2 we get Walker, Leggette, whatever... now the offense has what we're looking for, right? (I think there are other TE possibilities on Day 2, by the way.) And that kind of talent wasn't really available in free agency, not without moving heaven and earth to get it, and we knew that wasn't on the table.

The problem is... with the way Ballard has handled FA ... so far... we need much more than a WR and TE... we need pass-rush, we need corners, we need safeties... hell, we might need a LB too... so... no idea if Ballard would really put WR and TE atop of this list. In fact, if I had to guess, he wouldn't ... IMO he's more likely to pick DE at 15 than Bowers, even if Bowers is there. And even more likely to just trade back. BTW... I don't think drafting Bowers and WR in the second for sure solve our problems. Just like Alec PIerce didn't solve it. It's possible we get our guy, but far from certain... 

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

My point is that I expected the potential upgrades on offense to come in the draft, not free agency. I wanted a veteran WR and some veteran OL depth in FA, but those kind of players will be available for several weeks. It's also Ballard's plan to add those kind of players after the draft.

That's fair. With the slight exception for possible trade for WR or TE. But those are very hypothetical and not entirely up to Ballard.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

The problem is... with the way Ballard has handled FA ... so far... we need much more than a WR and TE... we need pass-rush, we need corners, we need safeties... hell, we might need a LB too... so... no idea if Ballard would really put WR and TE atop of this list. In fact, if I had to guess, he wouldn't ... IMO he's more likely to pick DE at 15 than Bowers, even if Bowers is there. And even more likely to just trade back. BTW... I don't think drafting Bowers and WR in the second for sure solve our problems. Just like Alec PIerce didn't solve it. It's possible we get our guy, but far from certain... 

That's fair. With the slight exception for possible trade for WR or TE. But those are very hypothetical and not entirely up to Ballard.

 

I was focusing on the offense because JW's position was we didn't do enough to support Richardson. 

 

I don't like what we've done on defense. People are saying if we let players walk, it would create holes on defense, and I honestly don't mind that. I don't think we have the right players on defense, I don't think we have the right scheme on defense, I wouldn't mind a near total tear down of the defensive roster. I'd prefer that to spending $100m on players that probably cap our ceiling. I've said that a few times now. It's where we agree the most, I think.

 

But regarding the offense, I don't know what you can do to 'for sure' solve our offensive problems. You keep bringing up JJ, I'd rather talk about reality LOL. The Vikings aren't trading him, and we're not trading for him.

 

And philosophically, I think the draft is where you get your dynamic WRs. There are tons of them every year, and you just need to keep swinging until you hit. I don't mind a trade back, I don't mind a DL at #15, I think every WR draft class for the foreseeable future will be rich with talent, and I have no problem with attacking that position on Day 2. But I think the Colts have signaled that DT isn't happening at #15.

[OLD FAN MAN]

33 minutes ago, DougDew said:

With everybody saying that Bowers will not fall to us, I would not at all be surprised if Ballard trades up to get him.  

 

It would take a second round pick to trade up.  Do we need more young corners with that second round pick...or more young edges (that don't seem to work out when drafted there anyway).  With Downs, and Pitt on board, Ballard's words suggest he's not ready to give up on AP.   How do you get more "explosive" in Ballard's words. if you don't replace AP?  He's not replacing Downs, and obviously not Pitt.

 

With Grover and Davis signed, is Ballard going to pick a DT with that second round pick he would use to trade up for Bowers?

 

Not making a prediction.  But you heard it here first if Ballard does the out of character thing and gets more explosive by trading up for Bowers.

ballard has not been good at drafting explosive pass rushers, pass catchers or cornerbacks

[John Waylon]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

What's your take on the offense from last year?

 

I personally don't think it's that far off. I want another WR who can make explosive plays, and I don't think that player was available in free agency, so I always expected that to be a draft target. I want OL depth. And I like our young TEs, but wouldn't mind a potential upgrade at the top; I'm a fan of Woods, if he's healthy.

 

Other than that, I think the offense going up a gear is mostly dependent on the QB.

 

What would you have wanted them to do on offense in free agency?

It’s not the offense I have my concerns about. We have a top their RB and we got back to some quality blocking up front last year. The line depth isn’t great, but there’s so few truly quality linemen in the league these days that there aren’t even enough quality starters for all 32 teams, so we’re always going to have mostly spare parts players at O-line depth. You have to hope to get one maybe two quality backups and then hope you don’t have to trot them out there. 
 

I wish we had a #1 WR that scores more often than my wife has a cycle, but whatever. We bought that farm and it bears what it bears. We’re likely going to spend yet another premium pick on the position in this draft, and the luck of the draw is on Ballard’s side this time because of the depth at WR in this draft. Maybe the third premium pick spent on the position in the last 5 years is the charm. 

 

The TEs have shown some promise, and Woods has all the tools you could ask for at the position. We just have to see if he can finally put any of it together, or if he’s another one of “those” day 2 picks. If Woods doesn’t pan out, Granson and Ogletree can be guys you can throw to, but they’re not game-changing guys a defense has to do any specific planning for when they play us. They’ll keep us afloat, but they don’t actually make us measurably better. JAGs at a position where you can squeak by on that. 
 

I don’t mind that we haven’t gone offense in FA. I actually don’t really appreciate the Flacco signing because we heard all the chatter about how we needed to get a backup that we didn’t need to totally re-design the offense around. I’d have much rather spent less on a backup with a comparable play style to AR and allocated that money elsewhere instead. Ideally we won’t need a backup QB this year because ours is out there. Even if Flacco is forced out there this season it’s not like that’s going to be a magic fix for smooth sailing to a division title and/or the playoffs. In the end he’ll be able to keep us somewhere in the middle, which is the same exact results we’ve had already, multiple times. Yay for that, I guess, but taking a chance at getting better would have been a better use of money. 
 

The defense is where the mess is right now. They go out there and bend, bend, bend, and then break.
 

The pass rush, despite the record sacks last season, was lacking and there’s been no dispute on that. 
 

The secondary was a hot mess. We started guys who should have struggled to make a roster for most teams last year. They’ve seemingly let Blackmon hit the bricks, it sure would be a lot of egg on the face if that plan backfired and whatever they intend to do at the position (be it give Cross a chance, or draft a guy,) blows up in their faces and the defense just gets worse yet for it.
 

The LBs aren’t the biggest dumpster fire of a unit we have, but an upgrade over Stuard shouldn’t upset anyone.
 

The IDL was probably the least of our pressing needs on defense because Buckner and Stewart have been the steady hands on our defense, as long as no one is serving a suspension. But that’s the one unit we have spent any measurable money on. And then they turned around and brought one of the guys who absolutely sucked at the position last year when they had to run him out there back. 
 

The secondary or pass rush is where a move needed to be made last week. Something, anything to just attempt to make it better. Sure, we can address those positions in the draft but who in the hell still trust’s Ballard to get it right in the draft at those spots? We’ve seen him spend premium picks at the position and come away with spare parts plenty of times already. Not again, please.
 

We’ve seen him take swings on Turay, Lewis, Blackmon, Hooker, Wilson, Basham, RYS, Banogu, Odeyingbo, Paye, and Cross at these positions with premium picks. Of that list only 3 of those names even remain on the team, Cross has been kept so far away from the field at times it’s like he’s been in the witness protection program, and Paye and Odeyingbo are setting our pass rush on fire so much that pretty much everyone agrees that we need to upgrade our pass rush, and substantially. 
 

Do I want to throw more lime green RAS bars at these positions with premium picks in the draft to fix the problem? # no. He’s tried. And tried and tried. Turns out he’s just not very good at it. All those underwhelming names listed above had pretty lime green bars next to their name when we drafted them, and how has any of that worked out for us?

 

So go out and get a guy who has shown proven results on tape in the league already because we’ve seen the attempted draft fixes, and they haven’t worked. Stop chasing the exception instead of the rule. It’s insanity. The same thing repeatedly not paying off. 

[BlackTiger]

13 minutes ago, stitches said:

we need corners, we need safeties... hell, we might need a LB too... so... no idea if Ballard would really put WR and TE atop of this list

It probably comes down to how they rank the WRs, CBs and Bowers.

 

Hard to see taking a Safety or LB that high this year.  It wont be Oline, DT, RB, or QB.  Probably not edge unless we move.

 

Trading back for more help in the secondary makes some sense but is boring

[stitches]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I was focusing on the offense because JW's position was we didn't do enough to support Richardson. 

 

I don't like what we've done on defense. People are saying if we let players walk, it would create holes on defense, and I honestly don't mind that. I don't think we have the right players on defense, I don't think we have the right scheme on defense, I wouldn't mind a near total tear down of the defensive roster. I'd prefer that to spending $100m on players that probably cap our ceiling. I've said that a few times now. It's where we agree the most, I think.

Agree with a lot of this, but I don't think it's happening. Ballard is not changing his scheme and likely not changing his DC... and not changing the majority of his players... like we saw, he actually likes what he's building, he resigned almost every big piece of that defense he could have resigned... including the DT that was bullied the whole season. And just like you I don't agree with any of it, but we are working with what we have, not with what we wished we had. So... with that said... knowing that Ballard likes this scheme and this (type of) coach, what should we be doing to make this defense with this coach better? I know this won't be popular for many people but... IMO this defense is super reliant on dominant pass-rush, so... just keep investing in it, keep drafting DEs early... and late... and hope one or two hit. The problem is that Ballard likes even his pass-rushers to be good in run defense so in a lot of cases this eliminates good players from consideration. 

 

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

But regarding the offense, I don't know what you can do to 'for sure' solve our offensive problems. You keep bringing up JJ, I'd rather talk about reality LOL. The Vikings aren't trading him, and we're not trading for him.

Yeah... no draft pick is really for sure... even the MHJ or Nabers... but IMO they have significantly higher chance to hit than the day 2 picks. 

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

And philosophically, I think the draft is where you get your dynamic WRs. There are tons of them every year, and you just need to keep swinging until you hit. I don't mind a trade back, I don't mind a DL at #15, I think every WR draft class for the foreseeable future will be rich with talent, and I have no problem with attacking that position on Day 2. But I think the Colts have signaled that DT isn't happening at #15.

True... the trend has been set for a while now - the draft will have good WR classes almost every year and again, I agree with you... ultimately you just have to keep trying even if the previous one didn't work. What you cannot and shouldn't do is give up on the position. Just keep drafting them. 

[richard pallo]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Ah, okay.  So when Ballard said that he wants us to be more explosive, he meant just getting AR back.  I kinda thought he was implying adding another piece, but you might be right.  Getting AR back would technically fit the description.

Getting AR back fits his description of getting explosive on the offensive side of the ball.  He might actually be okay with the offensive side.  Even the TE room.  He also said both sides of the ball need to become explosive.  So I’m expecting a move there and most likely the secondary.  That’s probably why he was interested in Sneed.  So I’m expecting him to be focusing on adding a defensive playmaker now.  I think he’s going to try hard to acquire a veteran.  Plenty of time to do that leading up to and including the draft.  There are plenty of ways to add cap space if he needs to as well.  So there really is no rush.  There is still FA and 31 other teams he could acquire a player from.  I’m sure he has plans and strategies in place.  So this early in the offseason I’m not worried right now.  Ballard is far from being done.

[stitches]

7 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

ballard has not been good at drafting explosive pass rushers, pass catchers or cornerbacks

I agree with this, but IMO the worst thing he can do is not even try anymore because he's been bad at it in the past. IMO he should keep trying. As long as he's here, I'd prefer him to try to address those high value positions, rather than give up on them. 

[John Waylon]

15 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I was focusing on the offense because JW's position was we didn't do enough to support Richardson. 

You can hamstring your QB by not doing enough on the other side of the ball and making his life more difficult than it needs to be. 
 

See:

 

Manning, Peyton

Luck, Andrew

[OLD FAN MAN]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

I agree with this, but IMO the worst thing he can do is not even try anymore because he's been bad at it in the past. IMO he should keep trying. As long as he's here, I'd prefer him to try to address those high value positions, rather than give up on them. 

maybe he should step aside and let the position coaches make the picks

[GoColts8818]

So here is what I THINK the Colts are going to do regarding the secondary.

 

Clearly they like and have more faith in Flowers, Brents, and Jones than fans do.  Add Kenny and you have four of the at most six spots at corner filled.  Odds are Lammons sticks as Kenny’a backup so that’s five slots.  That leaves room for one more guy and I think that’s going to come at 15 or perhaps their second round pick but more than likely 15.

 

At safety I think they liked enough of what they saw from Cross last year they are comfortable with him starting at one of the safety spots.  I also think they are comfortable letting Davis, Denbow and Thomas slug it out for the two backup spots.  I think Ballard made the decision to move on from Blackmon because of his asking price and his injury concerns.  I do think they will add a vet at safety to fill the other starting spot.  
 

So when the dust settles I think they are going to count on Kenny Moore and this new safety to be the vets back there and bring the young guys along.  
 

I know that isn’t what a lot of people want but I think it’s the direction they are going.  I say think because clearly I don’t know for a fact.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

maybe he should step aside and let the position coaches make the picks

We don't really know how their process works and whose input is being taken seriously. They have scouts and they have player personnel people... if some of them has not been doing a good job, they should be looking for replacements... but that's true at any level of the team really. Up to and including the GM...

[stitches]

12 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

It probably comes down to how they rank the WRs, CBs and Bowers.

 

Hard to see taking a Safety or LB that high this year.  It wont be Oline, DT, RB, or QB.  Probably not edge unless we move.

 

Trading back for more help in the secondary makes some sense but is boring

I think DT is not very likely... RB high is not likely... QB high is not likely... OL high is not likely(although... maybe day 2 for some medium-to-long-term planning in case they expect Kelly retirement soon?)... IMO people underestimate the possibility of us taking a DE high. Safety and LB IMO are two other positions that under the radar might be picks for the Colts as early as day 2. 

[DougDew]

25 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Getting AR back fits his description of getting explosive on the offensive side of the ball.  He might actually be okay with the offensive side.  Even the TE room.  He also said both sides of the ball need to become explosive.  So I’m expecting a move there and most likely the secondary.  That’s probably why he was interested in Sneed.  So I’m expecting him to be focusing on adding a defensive playmaker now.  I think he’s going to try hard to acquire a veteran.  Plenty of time to do that leading up to and including the draft.  There are plenty of ways to add cap space if he needs to as well.  So there really is no rush.  There is still FA and 31 other teams he could acquire a player from.  I’m sure he has plans and strategies in place.  So this early in the offseason I’m not worried right now.  Ballard is far from being done.

I would hope that when a GM says that we need to get more explosive on both sides of the ball, that its not a coy way of saying that he plans on just getting our own guys back that were on IR.  It would be kind of a disingenuous way to address the fans.  I would hope also that it meant something other than adding a vet player.

 

I was hoping he meant that about 3 or 4 positions would be targeted for replacing existing players the next two offseasons.  Something more of that magnitude

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

I don’t mind that we haven’t gone offense in FA. I actually don’t really appreciate the Flacco signing because we heard all the chatter about how we needed to get a backup that we didn’t need to totally re-design the offense around. I’d have much rather spent less on a backup with a comparable play style to AR and allocated that money elsewhere instead.

 

I asked you about the offense because it seemed like you were going after the Colts for not properly supporting Richardson. But it seems like that's not a real issue for you.

 

For backup QB, I would have wanted someone who better fit the Richardson offense, but before free agency I looked at the guys available, and I just don't like them. Tyrod Taylor or Tyler Huntley would have been okay, but still not good. Steichen has already shown that he can flip the offense for a backup, if necessary. And after last year, I think Flacco was probably the best veteran backup on the market. I'm not over the moon about it, but I think we can make it work with him for a few weeks if we have to.

 

Quote

 

So go out and get a guy who has shown proven results on tape in the league already because we’ve seen the attempted draft fixes, and they haven’t worked. Stop chasing the exception instead of the rule. It’s insanity. The same thing repeatedly not paying off. 

 

 

I mostly agree with you about the defense. I don't mind the RAS prospects in the draft, I think the shortcoming has been with coaching and development. Bigger picture, I'm not a Bradley fan, and I think our defensive output is capped with him anyway, but that doesn't mean we can't keep acquiring good players for the time when we hopefully make a change at DC.

 

Ultimately, I didn't expect Ballard to go take big swings for defensive playmakers in free agency. I'm more disappointed that he spent cap space on players that don't improve the defense, in the name of maintaining the status quo. I think maintaining on offense makes a lot more sense because we need to see the offense with Richardson, bottom line. But on defense, we're not set up right, and now that we spent more money on Stewart, Franklin, etc., we're not going to be set up right any time soon.

[stitches]

8 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

So here is what I THINK the Colts are going to do regarding the secondary.

 

Clearly they like and have more faith in Flowers, Brents, and Jones than fans do.  Add Kenny and you have four of the at most six spots at corner filled.  Odds are Lammons sticks as Kenny’a backup so that’s five slots.  That leaves room for one more guy and I think that’s going to come at 15 or perhaps their second round pick but more than likely 15.

 

At safety I think they liked enough of what they saw from Cross last year they are comfortable with him starting at one of the safety spots.  I also think they are comfortable letting Davis, Denbow and Thomas slug it out for the two backup spots.  I think Ballard made the decision to move on from Blackmon because of his asking price and his injury concerns.  I do think they will add a vet at safety to fill the other starting spot.  
 

So when the dust settles I think they are going to count on Kenny Moore and this new safety to be the vets back there and bring the young guys along.  
 

I know that isn’t what a lot of people want but I think it’s the direction they are going.  I say think because clearly I don’t know for a fact.

Of course Ballard likes them better than us. He likes most of his players more than us... or anyone else. He is the one that's picking them and the one that's re-signing them. Think about it ... in a league where as Ballard says "teams pay A and B money for C and D players", noone likes the Colts players more than Ballard. Or are the Colts the one team whose players are adequately valued in FA? 

[DougDew]

21 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

Trading back for more help in the secondary makes some sense but is boring

And trading back is generally NOT the way to directly get "more explosive".  You do that by trading up.  JMO.

[RollerColt]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

And trading back is generally NOT the way to directly get "more explosive".  You do that by trading up.  JMO.

I used to hate the concept of trading up. But if it works, it pays off big. And truthfully, it doesn't seem to set franchises back as badly as one would think. 

[stitches]

How would you guys feel about this draft: 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

2 hours ago, Happy2BeHere said:

Thread title here should be “Colt FA News…and 132 other random rants”  

132 and Counting..... 

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

I used to hate the concept of trading up. But if it works, it pays off big. And truthfully, it doesn't seem to set franchises back as badly as one would think. 

It sets you back one 2nd round draft pick that you probably had less than a 50% chance of hitting on a player that you couldn't get from a mid level veteran FA the next offseason.

 

If there is an "explosive" guy worth trading up for, I'd give pick 15 and the 2nd rounder no problems.  Draft value chart says that our pick 15 and pick 46 will get us ATLs pick 8 (actually TENs 7, but I doubt they would trade).   I could see that, if Ballard actually wanted to do that. 

[AKB]

11 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

And both Paye and Dayo have been good players when they’ve been healthy.   Do you want to say it’s Ballard’s fault they haven’t been healthy more often?  

yeah , it is actually, seems to be a pattern with the players he drafts

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, stitches said:

Agree with a lot of this, but I don't think it's happening. Ballard is not changing his scheme and likely not changing his DC... and not changing the majority of his players... like we saw, he actually likes what he's building, he resigned almost every big piece of that defense he could have resigned... including the DT that was bullied the whole season. And just like you I don't agree with any of it, but we are working with what we have, not with what we wished we had. So... with that said... knowing that Ballard likes this scheme and this (type of) coach, what should we be doing to make this defense with this coach better? I know this won't be popular for many people but... IMO this defense is super reliant on dominant pass-rush, so... just keep investing in it, keep drafting DEs early... and late... and hope one or two hit. The problem is that Ballard likes even his pass-rushers to be good in run defense so in a lot of cases this eliminates good players from consideration. 

 

Yeah, the answer to Gus Bradley's defense having a good pass rush is to have amazing edge rushers. Rumor has it that they were trying for Hunter, and maybe that clues us in on what happens in the draft, but I don't know.

 

But I don't know if Bradley would come back again if the defense continues to struggle. Ballard took the blame for the secondary, but we all know that Bradley had no answers in coverage. 

 

Quote

Yeah... no draft pick is really for sure... even the MHJ or Nabers... but IMO they have significantly higher chance to hit than the day 2 picks. 

 

Again, trying to stay within the realm of reality, because we know we're not trading up to draft a top WR. I really like several of the other guys. Day 2 WRs hit every year, and Day 1 WRs bust every year. People hate on the RAS stuff, but this is the position where I think there's the most correlation with success in the NFL. And while I don't think it will happen, Brian Thomas at #15 scratches the itch, for me.

 

Another thing that I know people don't want to hear, but I believe: We need to see Alec Pierce with a QB who doesn't hate the deep ball. Let him run his go routes, posts, curls, and crosses; those are the routes that beat zone coverage, and we're going to see a ton of zone coverage as long as Richardson is a threat to run the ball. I still want another prospect in the draft, but I'm not writing Pierce off yet.

 

 

 

[AKB]

If people's posts weren't deleted, moved, or merged with other threads, anti-Ballard posts would dominate this forum. I know that because on every other less moderated forum, the majority of fans are complaining about Ballard, whilst here on this forum its relegated to a single thread in which we separate fan opinions. That's why most people don't even bother complaining about Ballard on this forum anymore. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Sadly the colts arw probably going to have to take a corner at 15 instead a WR or TE. I guess Ballard could always circle back after the draft for a corner if he goes offense at 15. Listening to the blue zone podcast much better hit rate with offensive pass catchers on first round then corners.