Colts offseason discussion / Ballard Grievances (merge)

[RollerColt]

Just now, Solid84 said:

There's a lot of truth in this. This division has been bad for too long. Hopefully we see that change this season.

It’s very frustrating. I’m one of those weird fans that actually likes seeing the divisional opponents get better because it makes us better. I was a huge JJ Watt fan, it sucked to see that franchise not figured it out for his sake. Oh well… that’s basically how it goes for most players. Very few make it to the top. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, AKB said:

it is relevant because you mentioned almost winning the division by a razor's edge. so then I just felt like reminding everyone that what you said we almost did, we haven't done in a decade. does it bother you more that I quoted you or does it bother you more than we haven't won our division in 10 years

 

Then you completely missed my point. See my post above.

 

To the bolded, what do you gain from this? It's pretty baity, IMO.

[AKB]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Then you completely missed my point. See my post above.

 

To the bolded, what do you gain from this? It's pretty baity, IMO.

not trying to bait, you seemed bothered that I provided you a list of division losses. if you weren't bothered, then okay, next. but quite a few people on here are bothered when the facts are mentioned, that Ballard has accomplished nothing employing the same routine. 

[John Waylon]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

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.

 

 

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.

I’m not even upset that we didn’t make a major splash on defense. We didn’t need to hand out the biggest deal in defense, or even a top 5 deal on defense. But something measurable that helped make us better. When I heard we were in on the Sneed trade I was content. No issues making a trade for someone who will come in and make an immediate positive impact. In fact, I trust Ballard to do that more than I trust him to hit in the first two days of the draft. Buckner is a better addition to this defense than anyone else Ballard has added in the draft. And wouldn’t you know which unit on our defense is the one we can actually consider a strength… 🤔🤔🤔

 

But when the news that we weren’t in on Sneed broke, so did my patience. This * is sitting on his hands running it back with a unit god and everyone has identified critical issues with and is apparently trying to fix those problems with more draft picks, which history tells us is most likely a dead end with Ballard. 
 

Our rookie QB is already going out there with a world of pressure on his shoulders before the ball is even kicked off. Sitting by idly while this defense stagnates or god forbid gets worse, does absolutely no favors for Richardson because now he has the added pressure that in the event that he or the offense are struggling the defense is gonna probably go out there and give up 3 if not 7. Don’t just willingly throw him out there and make him have to try and play with the same mentality that Luck did, that didn’t work out so well last time around. 
 

If a GM wants to build through the draft that’s fine. But when you miss in the draft and your team suddenly has an issue, you need to correct that issue in free agency. Otherwise the issues keep being issues, and nothing changes. 
 

When you do what you always do, you get what you always get and that’s where we’re at with Ballard. All because he can’t figure out any way to help his team with top 5 cap space before the start of FA. 
 

People defend that we retained many of our own, and they equate that to being effective because “we were just a couple plays away from getting in last season”. We were just as many plays away from going 6-11 or 5-12. That’s a flimsy argument and it can make a quick turn and cut back the other way real quick. 
 

Ballard has been all about how “it’s not about just one guy” since the Luck debacle concluded, but if we’re running it back with this sub-par defense and hoping Richardson being healthy is the thing that gets us over the hump we got hung up on last season that sure feels like it’s about just one guy. Again. 
 

It’s just more and more and more of the same old % that landed us here to begin with, on multiple levels. 

[Solid84]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What's wrong with that? Do you think the previous DL coach had been doing a good job?

Well, like I said - I don't think the problem is coaching, I think it's talent and IF that's true then this is Ballard trying to cover his *.

 

Quote

I think coaching is a part of the problem. I've been saying that since before the 2021 season. I also think talent is a part of the problem. I can say I don't really like anything the defensive staff is doing, and I'm not a fan of the way Ballard handled the defensive roster, either. But I don't think there's anything wrong with replacing the DL coach when plenty of us think the DL is underperforming.

Look, I'm not saying Charlie Partridge can't wring a little more performance out of this group, but I don't think that's going to take it into the good or even "good enough" category. I think it's talent. Happy to be wrong of course.

 

Quote

That list is long. Feels kind of padded, unless you were expecting Gerri Green and Titus Leo to be standout pass rushers.

Not my intention to pad it, but I wanted to show the full picture of how much we've invested in that position. Now, Green and Leo may amount to zip value-wise, but we're still using picks hoping to at least get solid backups right?

 

Quote

We need better pass rush. This is not something where we disagree. I've said several times that I think DE might be a blind spot for Ballard, and he'd be better off adding a veteran. In fact, that worked reasonably well, and then the young guys weren't able to fill the holes. 

 

But I think saying there's nothing to show for the investments on the DL is a stretch, right? Especially when our biggest investment on the DL is Buckner. And I didn't want to keep Stewart, but he outperformed his draft status, and lived up to his second contract. 

Oh sure, "nothing to show for the investments" is hyperbole, but let me rephrase it to "not enough to show for the investments" then.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, AKB said:

not trying to bait, you seemed bothered that I provided you a list of division losses. if you weren't bothered, then okay, next. but quite a few people on here are bothered when the facts are mentioned, that Ballard has accomplished nothing employing the same routine. 

 

No, just bothered by the combativeness. I don't even think we disagree all that much, but it feels like you're looking for a fight.

[AKB]

Just now, Superman said:

 

No, just bothered by the combativeness. I don't even think we disagree all that much, but it feels like you're looking for a fight.

probably just a bit irritated due to the censorship regarding ballard comments, I apologize if it came off that way 

[Solid84]

6 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

It’s very frustrating. I’m one of those weird fans that actually likes seeing the divisional opponents get better because it makes us better. I was a huge JJ Watt fan, it sucked to see that franchise not figured it out for his sake. Oh well… that’s basically how it goes for most players. Very few make it to the top. 

100% agree. Iron sharpens iron.

[GoColts8818]

This thread should be changed to Colts fan death match.  It’s turned into I must be right in my argument more than legitimately discussing what’s going on.  I’ve played my part but I am trying to stop for the record so no I don’t think I am better than anyone.  My advice again would be two smart people can see the samething differently and it doesn’t mean the other side doesn’t know what they are talking about if they don’t agree with you.  Just my two cents carry on however you want.

[AKB]

Just now, GoColts8818 said:

This thread should be changed to Colts fan death match.  It’s turned into I must be right in my argument more than legitimately discussing what’s going on.  I’ve played my part but I am trying to stop for the record so no I don’t think I am better than anyone.  My advice again would be two smart people can see the samething differently and it doesn’t mean the other side doesn’t know what they are talking about if they don’t agree with you.  Just my two cents carry on however you want.

so now its inappropriate to debate about ballard in the ballard thread. don't read it if you don't want to. 

[GoColts8818]

2 minutes ago, AKB said:

so now its inappropriate to debate about ballard in the ballard thread. don't read it if you don't want to. 

Yeah that’s not what I said.  I am also not going to fight with you like you want.  Have a nice day.

[Solid84]

41 minutes ago, AKB said:

"What you call negative and deeply cynical I call realistic. " - @Solid84

 

There appears to be a theme on this board where if you have what appears to be a negative, or unpopular opinion you are therefore a cynic, or pessimist, and only need to be enlightened to see the truth.

 

I think its garbage, call it what it is. BBB doing BBB things. No one calls me an optimist when I praise him for a late round steal, but let me complain about anything, and there's a riot. 

 

 

I've grown used to it. People are just adverse to change, but they try and pass it off as "patience".

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

But when the news that we weren’t in on Sneed broke, so did my patience. This * is sitting on his hands running it back with a unit god and everyone has identified critical issues with and is apparently trying to fix those problems with more draft picks, which history tells us is most likely a dead end with Ballard. 

 

I don't know if you caught my earlier posts on this topic in this thread. I never believed the Sneed stuff. I was already critical of how we handled the re-signings, and said if the Sneed deal happens, I'll change my tune, but we know how that went. 

 

Quote

People defend that we retained many of our own, and they equate that to being effective because “we were just a couple plays away from getting in last season”. We were just as many plays away from going 6-11 or 5-12. That’s a flimsy argument and it can make a quick turn and cut back the other way real quick. 

I agree. I'm not super impressed by being a couple plays away from the playoffs, because I think our goals should be much higher than that. And spending resources on players that, IMO, don't get us there, kind of signals more status quo, vs a real attempt to push through to the top of the conference. I would have rather sat on that cap space and guaranteed money, than spend it on non pass rushing DL and non pass covering LBs. I have said that for a week now.

 

Quote

Our rookie QB is already going out there with a world of pressure on his shoulders before the ball is even kicked off. Sitting by idly while this defense stagnates or god forbid gets worse, does absolutely no favors for Richardson because now he has the added pressure that in the event that he or the offense are struggling the defense is gonna probably go out there and give up 3 if not 7. Don’t just willingly throw him out there and make him have to try and play with the same mentality that Luck did, that didn’t work out so well last time around. 

I don't see this the same way you do, though. I think we need to see our QB actually do the job. We saw Luck carry a bad team, and then we didn't give him the proper support. We don't even know if Richardson can carry a good team. Until we have more clarity on the QB, we're still a year away from being a year away. Which is why I would have been fine keeping that cap space.

 

And like I said earlier, I think the best way to properly support Richardson on offense is with the draft. If we don't do that, I'll be even more critical of Ballard than I was last week.

[DougDew]

22 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

It’s very frustrating. I’m one of those weird fans that actually likes seeing the divisional opponents get better because it makes us better. I was a huge JJ Watt fan, it sucked to see that franchise not figured it out for his sake. Oh well… that’s basically how it goes for most players. Very few make it to the top. 

I like watching competent football and I think JAX and HOU are very competent (JAX had a down year with Trevor playing injured IMO).  I have no issues at all rooting for them if the Colts aren't winning.  I actually like their teams, how they are constructed, and like both QBs, and both HCs.  Its just unfortunate that they play in our Division.

[throwing BBZ]

3 hours 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. 

 

 So paying a Jefferson or Aiyuk $25-30 M would make us better.

We would be losing several good players to  do that.

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

I think we need to see our QB actually do the job. We saw Luck carry a bad team, and then we didn't give him the proper support. We don't even know if Richardson can carry a good team. Until we have more clarity on the QB, we're still a year away from being a year away. Which is why I would have been fine keeping that cap space.

 

Perfect comment.

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, AKB said:

probably just a bit irritated due to the censorship regarding ballard comments, I apologize if it came off that way 

 

I think you've been highly sarcastic, pretty aggressive, somewhat hostile, and in certain instances I've felt like my comments are misrepresented. None of that contributes to an environment for a productive discussion. I appreciate the apology, but that's why there's so much pushback.

 

I actually don't have any problem with a good faith discussion about this stuff. But when it goes to the extremes every time, it's aggravating.

[NewColtsFan]

37 minutes ago, AKB said:

 

You love stats, don't you? We are the 2nd most injured team in the league under Ballard's tenure

 

The Titans, Texans, and Jags have all accomplished more than us under Ballard's tenure. so let's not talk about every team, let's just talk about our division.  can we get a division dub before we talk about SuperBowl? you hyperbolize me, but the reality is still the same. 

 

 

 

 

 

Huh?   What stats do I love?   
 

Here’s what I’m trying to avoid….    A long exchange of long posts by each of us where at the end each side concedes Jen small point.   Both of us spending way too much time debating back and forth where at the end we agree to disagree.   So let’s skip the endless debate that eventually gets us no where and agree to disagree now.    
 

Listen, I can’t write much more, my newest TROLL,  aka @OLD FAN MAN is waiting for me to finish so he give me another disapproving emoji.   It’s his favorite new hobby.   
 

Talk to you later….  

[stitches]

9 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 So paying a Jefferson or Aiyuk $25-30 M would make us better.

We would be losing several good players to  do that.

Sure... you get worse in certain areas to get better in others. It's a give and take. We don't have unlimited resources and I'm not blind to this. I just think what Jefferson would bring is more valuable and would result in more wins than what.... Franklin and Grover and Raekwon Davis would give this team. And what they bring is MUCH MORE easy to approximate for a lot cheaper than what Jefferson would bring. 

 

BTW we didn't even need to give Franklin that contract. He was still under contract for 2024. 

 

Also... just for the record - for as good as Grover was and as bad as his replacements were, we went 4-2 in the games he missed. And notice - I'm not saying we didn't miss him and I'm not saying our run D wasn't worse with him... because we did miss him and our run D was horrendous without him. What I'm saying is... certain things just don't correlate with winning as much as other things. 

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, AKB said:

i mean like Rock for example. a guy who leaves and signs elsewhere, ballard doesn't usually bring them back after that

the eagles probably have the best FO in the league, and ballard could learn something from them

Rock was traded.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 So paying a Jefferson or Aiyuk $25-30 M would make us better.

We would be losing several good players to  do that.

 

Philosophical question: How many "good players" does it take to offset the absence of one "great" player? Would losing Ryan Kelly, Mo Alie-Cox, and Grover Stewart be worth adding a player like Justin Jefferson?

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Philosophical question: How many "good players" does it take to offset the absence of one "great" player? Would losing Ryan Kelly, Mo Alie-Cox, and Grover Stewart be worth adding a player like Justin Jefferson?

In less than a heart-beat it would be. 

[BlackTiger]

This will be a big year.  If Richardson isnt good then the door is wide open to go off on the front office and Jim.

 

Its fair to wonder if Jim Irsay is still fit to lead the team too.  

[richard pallo]

31 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Hopefully this means Blackmon could be back.

 

 

I agree.  Bills went the least expensive route.  Hopefully Blackmon realizes that his asking price is too high.  Time for another conversation with Ballard.

[Superman]

23 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Well, like I said - I don't think the problem is coaching, I think it's talent and IF that's true then this is Ballard trying to cover his *.

 

This is where my cynicism argument comes in. It is absolutely a defense of Ballard. He might not be good at drafting DEs, but I don't think he's shadow firing the DL coach to save himself. If it were up to me, the entire defensive staff would be gone.

 

Quote

Look, I'm not saying Charlie Partridge can't wring a little more performance out of this group, but I don't think that's going to take it into the good or even "good enough" category. I think it's talent. Happy to be wrong of course.

 

I get it. But would you agree that the OL coach change yielded positive results? I think we still need more talent at DL, but I also think there's juice to be squeezed out of the guys we already have, specifically in the pass rush.

 

[stitches]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Philosophical question: How many "good players" does it take to offset the absence of one "great" player? Would losing Ryan Kelly, Mo Alie-Cox, and Grover Stewart be worth adding a player like Justin Jefferson?

Absolutely! You don't even need to remove Ryan Kelly. Just don't extend Franklin who was still under contract, let Stewart go, let MAC go... and you are there... And for the love of everything holy do NOT give 7.5M to Raekwon Davis. Armon Watts went for 3M and he's a better player than Davis. 

[Solid84]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is where my cynicism argument comes in. It is absolutely a defense of Ballard. He might not be good at drafting DEs, but I don't think he's shadow firing the DL coach to save himself. If it were up to me, the entire defensive staff would be gone.

 

 

I get it. But would you agree that the OL coach change yielded positive results? I think we still need more talent at DL, but I also think there's juice to be squeezed out of the guys we already have, specifically in the pass rush.

 

I think Sparano was what the Oline needed, but then there were reports of complete breakdowns from Strausser at the end.

 

As I said to another poster, there's a difference between the Oline and the Dline in that the Oline actually had produced at a very high level - the Dline hasn't. What we got from the Oline was a return to form (somewhat). What we hope to get from the Dline is new heights and that's a different and a bigger ask in my opinion.

[Jason_]

1 hour ago, AKB said:

i doubht chloe is physically vomitting, but i'm sure there are more than a few fans who are displeased with ballards routine. 

 

probably not...still the typical overreaction and wishy washy nature we see from day to day  

[AKB]

15 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think you've been highly sarcastic, pretty aggressive, somewhat hostile, and in certain instances I've felt like my comments are misrepresented. None of that contributes to an environment for a productive discussion. I appreciate the apology, but that's why there's so much pushback.

 

I actually don't have any problem with a good faith discussion about this stuff. But when it goes to the extremes every time, it's aggravating.

There's nothing extreme about stating facts. There's nothing extreme about the fact Ballard does the same thing and has only had the same result. Nothing extreme about posting a list of the division winners of his entire tenure and our team not being a winner. 

 

The fact of the matter is this forum is incredibly sensitive to any anti Ballard banter 

[AKB]

15 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Rock was traded.

Yeah that's what I mean. Traded. Not resigned. Either one. He was due for a contract that year if I'm not mistaken, or was coming up on it. 

[Jason_]

1 hour ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

does signing your own without adding game changers mean we will finish like we did last season? Third place in our division

 

Hmm, is Gardner Minshew going to be our QB this year or no?

[AKB]

Just now, Jason_ said:

 

Hmm, is Gardner Minshew going to be our QB this year or no?

Joe flacco might be. Lol

[Superman]

Just now, Solid84 said:

I think Sparano was what the Oline needed, but then there were reports of complete breakdowns from Strausser at the end.

 

As I said to another poster, there's a difference between the Oline and the Dline in that the Oline actually had produced at a very high level - the Dline hasn't. What we got from the Oline was a return to form (somewhat). What we hope to get from the Dline is new heights and that's a different and a bigger ask in my opinion.

 

New heights to me would be more pressures and better finishing. I'm not out here banging the drum for Partridge, but maybe he gets more out of the DL than we've been getting, in which case his hiring would be worth it. I make no prediction about what actually happens, though.

[GoColts8818]

2 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I think Sparano was what the Oline needed, but then there were reports of complete breakdowns from Strausser at the end.

 

As I said to another poster, there's a difference between the Oline and the Dline in that the Oline actually had produced at a very high level - the Dline hasn't. What we got from the Oline was a return to form (somewhat). What we hope to get from the Dline is new heights and that's a different and a bigger ask in my opinion.

I think that’s a fair read but often time the way you get more out of guys is to change coaches.  Clearly that’s what Ballard is gambling on.  Time will tell if he’s right or not.  

[Solid84]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

New heights to me would be more pressures and better finishing. I'm not out here banging the drum for Partridge, but maybe he gets more out of the DL than we've been getting, in which case his hiring would be worth it. I make no prediction about what actually happens, though.

 

1 minute ago, GoColts8818 said:

I think that’s a fair read but often time the way you get more out of guys is to change coaches.  Clearly that’s what Ballard is gambling on.  Time will tell if he’s right or not.  

I REALLY hope Partridge is the answer because that would save us a lot of money and/or draft capital, lol.

[GoColts8818]

4 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

 

I REALLY hope Partridge is the answer because that would save us a lot of money and/or draft capital, lol.

I’d also add I do think Ballard felt the line needs more talent too.  Assuming Holder is right and the Colts really tried to land Hunter that would point to that.  Beyond that maybe he doesn’t feel the other guys out there would add the improvement they need for the money they wanted.  We all saw with Ngakoue just adding a vet pass rusher wasn’t enough to fix it either.  It has to be the right guy.  Maybe that will come in the draft maybe it won’t and the pass rush will be a problem again.  Just gotta see what happens.

[stitches]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

New heights to me would be more pressures and better finishing. I'm not out here banging the drum for Partridge, but maybe he gets more out of the DL than we've been getting, in which case his hiring would be worth it. I make no prediction about what actually happens, though.

IMO Partridge would be most useful with the players that are still not set in their ways and that are just coming into the league. They are most malleable and improve the most in the beginning of their careers(the first few years). With vets, it's much harder to teach them new tricks and they've already been around NFL coaching(even if we didn't like that coaching) and they've had the chance to improve on a lot of things so... if they weren't successful in some of those already, it's more likely they won't be successful again, even with better coaching.  

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, AKB said:

There's nothing extreme about stating facts. There's nothing extreme about the fact Ballard does the same thing and has only had the same result. Nothing extreme about posting a list of the division winners of his entire tenure and our team not being a winner. 

 

The fact of the matter is this forum is incredibly sensitive to any anti Ballard banter 

 

Totally false. The fact of the matter is that the conversations on Ballard almost always get pushed to the margins. And that's not enjoyable for anyone except the people who get pleasure from bashing the GM.

[AKB]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Totally false. The fact of the matter is that the conversations on Ballard almost always get pushed to the margins. And that's not enjoyable for anyone except the people who get pleasure from bashing the GM.

NFL.com ranks Ballard as the 18th best gm. What do you think of that, and do you think he should be fired 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

IMO the Partridge would be most useful with the players that are still not set in their ways and that are just coming into the league. They are most maleable and improve the most in the beginning of their careers(the first few years). With vets, it's much harder to teach them new tricks and they've already been around NFL coaching(even if we didn't like that coaching) and they've had the chance to improve on a lot of things so... if they weren't successful in some of those already, it's more likely they won't be successful again, even with better coach.  

 

Yeah, he's not changing anything for Buckner or Stewart. I think Paye and Dayo still have a lot of room to grow, though.

 

And the DL coach doesn't just teach technique, he also teaches scheme. So stunts, slants, how we'll defend options, etc., there can be a strategic improvement with a new DL coach. We'll see if any of that actually happens.

 

End of the day, I agree with everyone who thinks the DL needs better players. I think that's true of the entire defense.