Colts offseason discussion / Ballard Grievances (merge)

[LJpalmbeacher2]

1 hour ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

His daughters are owners... and have a lot more influence than you are crediting.

 

So you saying his daughters are part blame for the colts not winning??? 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Just going back to the DW fraud fiasco,.  It seems shrewd on HOU part, who never once said a bad word about DW....but frequently that they would like to have him back.

 

I thought CLE was a last minute bidder in the DW sweepstakes where DW sort of chose CLE because of the fully guaranteed contract part.  The draft pick compensation to HOU was already settled between 3 or 4 teams, IIRC.  

It's not Luck that Houston got those precious draft picks and got to move on from DW.

 

Who knows? Colts might have cut DW and could've got nothing in return either.

 

As you said, Houston navigated those tough situations with their franchise QB without making statements that'd tarnish his market, made a very shrewd trade.

 

If someone calls that LUCKY, those persons need to provide here conclusive evidence that no other team than Browns wanted DW and somehow Browns was stupid to fall for that. No, Browns paid that because there was market for DW, and they had to give those draft picks to get him while the court cases were piling up. 

[throwing BBZ]

16 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

This is probably the first offseason though where I truly don’t understand what the heck Ballard is doing or trying to accomplish with this secondary .  It makes zero sense to me. Maybe in a few weeks it will make more sense but right now it doesn’t. There is no way Bradley is ok with this secondary.

 

 It's good that you have enough sense that things could make sense in only a few weeks. 

 It would be fun to know when thinking long term, if Bradley was a no on Blackmon.

My eyes saw Blackmon not getting to the ball as was likely his assignment. There were nice flashes for sure, but... his grades by our staff might have been mediocre.

[Superman]

52 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

So Every 3-4 years rosters churn 75-80% by nature.

Fans complaining Ballard is doing the same thing as over his prior 7 years must account that we are still early in the post Frank reboot.

 

I agree with this. I've tried to make the same point.

 

Quote

But what we do have is a pretty good core of in their prime veterans that can play good  football. We have a 8-9 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year players that can be expected to play better than last year. 

 

That might be true, but I think we're still light in specific areas that correlate to winning at a high level, especially on defense. And that's partly why I'm not all that excited about the idea of keeping the core together.

 

Again, my earlier point was that there are a times where a premier talent at a premier position is more valuable to a team than lower tier talent at less critical positions. In theory, having a dynamic, standout WR at $30m is more valuable than having a second tier WR at $23m + a rotational DT at $7m.

[Blueblood23]

1 hour ago, RollerColt said:

We also have no idea if they’re any better than their father. We’ll find out eventually. 

As a fan, I would hope so and wish it would happen soon.

[DougDew]

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

That might be true, but I think we're still light in specific areas that correlate to winning at a high level, especially on defense. And that's partly why I'm not all that excited about the idea of keeping the core together.

 

Again, my earlier point was that there are a times where a premier talent at a premier position is more valuable to a team than lower tier talent at less critical positions. In theory, having a dynamic, standout WR at $30m is more valuable than having a second tier WR at $23m + a rotational DT at $7m.

Ballard obviously values the QB position above all else, as he should. 

 

But it seems that his philosophy towards the other 21 positional players is that they all have the same level of importance.  That having an elite WR or an elite LT is no different than having an elite LG.  On defense, It seems he thinks that the zone scheme...as well as pass rush by committee.....means that you need no actual elite players in any specific position, just that you should have some somewhere.

 

You've spoken about Ballard having a blind spot.  I say its right there.

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, Blueblood23 said:

We don’t know that.

Yes we do. They literally have represented the team at various meetings. All 3 are vice-chair and co-owners of the team. Carli was reportedly very involved in the interview process and subsequent hiring of Steichen. 
 

you are just making stuff up to try fit your narrative at this point… We don’t know that Jim has even been involved since December. That is more believable than his daughters (especially Carli who is on the sideline every game with a headset on) don’t have any influence. That’s hilarious to assume that the ones that are in the process of taking the team over, and possibly sooner than later, are not involved in decision-making. Like, what? Have you been involved in a succession plan? They are Jim’s legacy… 

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

So you saying his daughters are part blame for the colts not winning??? 

lol. Hardly. I’ve been vocal enough on this forum that not having consistent qb play is the difference with this team… 

 

and by consistent I mean both on the field and just having the same qb, which we have not since Ryan Grigson was general manager. Think about that… 2016- Luck, 2017-no luck, 2018- luck, 2019- brisset, 2020- rivers, 2021- Wentz, 2022- Ryan, 2023- AR/Minshew… this will be the first year since 2016 that the same qb starts consecutive season openers. That’s why we haven’t won consistently… 

[throwing BBZ]

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I agree with this. I've tried to make the same point.

 

 

That might be true, but I think we're still light in specific areas that correlate to winning at a high level, especially on defense. And that's partly why I'm not all that excited about the idea of keeping the core together.

 

Again, my earlier point was that there are a times where a premier talent at a premier position is more valuable to a team than lower tier talent at less critical positions. In theory, having a dynamic, standout WR at $30m is more valuable than having a second tier WR at $23m + a rotational DT at $7m.

 

 Recalling Irsays penchant making numerous players the highest paid at their position, including Gosder, I believe Marvin got that.

 We had the 

#1 pick Manning a 5 time MVP challenging for the GOAT

#4 pick Edge in the HOF

#16 pick Marvin in the HOF and a top 3 WR most any given year.

#16 Maybe TE Dallas

#31 ? Reggie probably HOF

  And we beat Rex Grossman when we finally had a good defense.

 Brady had 1 great WR for 1 year in NE.

Mike Evans is consistently really good, so yeah he was a difference maker. But he didhave the GOAT.

 

  Today, our back seven to me definitely looks more like a bottom 5 unit, so ugh! Ballard/Dodds has a below average record back there. Have they hit with Juju and Cross? They better have. 

 If they were to add Arnold or Mitchell and a vet safety it should things considerably. Here is hoping. 

 Time for me to be done on the subject. I appreciate your take and time. lol

 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Ballard obviously values the QB position above all else, as he should. 

 

But it seems that his philosophy towards the other 21 positional players is that they all have the same importance.  That having an elite WR or an elite LT is no different than having an elite LG.  On defense, It seems he thinks that the zone scheme...as well as pass rush by committee.....means that you need no actual elite players in any specific position, just that you have some somewhere.

 

You've spoken about Ballard having a blind spot.  I say its right there.

 

I think the bolded is too far. Ballard values certain positions more than a lot of fans seem to, and his 'you pay good players' philosophy means he's okay with paying a RB $14m rather than trying to replace his production for $5-6m. But I don't think he puts them all on the same level of importance. 

 

I think his deepest convictions are, in whatever order: A) Draft well and pay your own, B) The trenches are critically important, and C) Free agency is overrated. (I don't have a huge problem with this approach, but you have to be near perfect in the draft, every year, for it to work well.)

 

So he hits on Grover Stewart, and pays him (that's two of his three deepest convictions). He hits on Leonard, Nelson, Smith, and pays them. If Quincy Wilson, Tarell Basham, Zach Banner, Parris Campbell, Rock Ya-Sin, etc., turned out to be stars, Ballard would have prioritized keeping them on second contracts. I don't think he decided to have a roster where a lot of money was allocated to "non premium" positions; he drafted players who were good fits, they played well, and he kept them. And he avoided spending a lot of money in free agency -- even on "premium" positions --  because he wanted to reserve cap for the players he drafted.

 

Where I think he might have a blind spot is in evaluating young edge players. Stitches mentioned that he wants his edges to be good against the run, which maybe penalizes the true standout pass rush guys. I don't think Polian was good at evaluating young DTs; he balanced out his deficiency by acquiring veteran DTs. (But Polian did have a positional value philosophy: QB, players who score TDs, create turnovers, and pressure the QB. Some might find that flawed because he valued RBs in the first round, and valued pass rush edge players even if they were bad against the run, which is kind of the opposite of what Ballard does.) Ballard got some good veteran production out of Autry and Houston, but his young guys didn't meet the task when those vets left. I will say, while Paye and Dayo are no Freeney and Mathis, they're pretty good, and I think people are somewhat dismissive of them.

 

As I've said, I would rather reallocate cap resources to specific "premium" positions than keep paying a high cost for a non-pass rush NT. But I don't agree that Ballard has no regard for positional value. 

[BeanDiasucci]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Ballard obviously values the QB position above all else, as he should. 

 

But it seems that his philosophy towards the other 21 positional players is that they all have the same importance.  That having an elite WR or an elite LT is no different than having an elite LG.  On defense, It seems he thinks that the zone scheme...as well as pass rush by committee.....means that you need no actual elite players in any specific position, just that you have some somewhere.

 

You've spoken about Ballard having a blind spot.  I say its right there.

Ballard has talked about building the team from the inside out, emphasizing strength in the trenches, since he arrived in Indianapolis. This may have resulted in less emphasis on elite talent at perimeter positions like WR and CB. In addition, the Colts have prioritized using high picks for defensive ends throughout Ballard's tenure, but have failed so far to pick elite pass rushing talent. 

The emphasis on line personnel fit well with Frank Reich's philosophy of emphasizing the running game and a short passing attack. I'm hoping that with a different coach and an obvious NFL trend to prioritize the passing game, Ballard will evolve. We've seen some signs of that, such as picking a smaller receiver Josh Downs in the third round last year. But other things make you wonder - like making Jonathan Taylor the NFL's third-highest-paid running back and going with a shaky, low-cost group of DBs.  

 

[GoColts8818]

21 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think the bolded is too far. Ballard values certain positions more than a lot of fans seem to, and his 'you pay good players' philosophy means he's okay with paying a RB $14m rather than trying to replace his production for $5-6m. But I don't think he puts them all on the same level of importance. 

 

I think his deepest convictions are, in whatever order: A) Draft well and pay your own, B) The trenches are critically important, and C) Free agency is overrated. (I don't have a huge problem with this approach, but you have to be near perfect in the draft, every year, for it to work well.)

 

So he hits on Grover Stewart, and pays him (that's two of his three deepest convictions). He hits on Leonard, Nelson, Smith, and pays them. If Quincy Wilson, Tarell Basham, Zach Banner, Parris Campbell, Rock Ya-Sin, etc., turned out to be stars, Ballard would have prioritized keeping them on second contracts. I don't think he decided to have a roster where a lot of money was allocated to "non premium" positions; he drafted players who were good fits, they played well, and he kept them. And he avoided spending a lot of money in free agency -- even on "premium" positions --  because he wanted to reserve cap for the players he drafted.

 

Where I think he might have a blind spot is in evaluating young edge players. Stitches mentioned that he wants his edges to be good against the run, which maybe penalizes the true standout pass rush guys. I don't think Polian was good at evaluating young DTs; he balanced out his deficiency by acquiring veteran DTs. (But Polian did have a positional value philosophy: QB, players who score TDs, create turnovers, and pressure the QB. Some might find that flawed because he valued RBs in the first round, and valued pass rush edge players even if they were bad against the run, which is kind of the opposite of what Ballard does.) Ballard got some good veteran production out of Autry and Houston, but his young guys didn't meet the task when those vets left. I will say, while Paye and Dayo are no Freeney and Mathis, they're pretty good, and I think people are somewhat dismissive of them.

 

As I've said, I would rather reallocate cap resources to specific "premium" positions than keep paying a high cost for a non-pass rush NT. But I don't agree that Ballard has no regard for positional value. 

I’d go one step further and say Ballard values certain positions more than most around the NFL do.  I know I didn’t like it when I heard it reported he told a local reporter he sees oline and dline as premium positions.  I agree they are important but other than an elite pass rushing end which the Colts don’t have I don’t see them as premium positions.  So that’s one area I don’t agree with Ballard but I know that’s who he is so it is what is to me.  

[DougDew]

55 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think the bolded is too far. Ballard values certain positions more than a lot of fans seem to, and his 'you pay good players' philosophy means he's okay with paying a RB $14m rather than trying to replace his production for $5-6m. But I don't think he puts them all on the same level of importance. 

 

I think his deepest convictions are, in whatever order: A) Draft well and pay your own, B) The trenches are critically important, and C) Free agency is overrated. (I don't have a huge problem with this approach, but you have to be near perfect in the draft, every year, for it to work well.)

 

So he hits on Grover Stewart, and pays him (that's two of his three deepest convictions). He hits on Leonard, Nelson, Smith, and pays them. If Quincy Wilson, Tarell Basham, Zach Banner, Parris Campbell, Rock Ya-Sin, etc., turned out to be stars, Ballard would have prioritized keeping them on second contracts. I don't think he decided to have a roster where a lot of money was allocated to "non premium" positions; he drafted players who were good fits, they played well, and he kept them. And he avoided spending a lot of money in free agency -- even on "premium" positions --  because he wanted to reserve cap for the players he drafted.

 

Where I think he might have a blind spot is in evaluating young edge players. Stitches mentioned that he wants his edges to be good against the run, which maybe penalizes the true standout pass rush guys. I don't think Polian was good at evaluating young DTs; he balanced out his deficiency by acquiring veteran DTs. (But Polian did have a positional value philosophy: QB, players who score TDs, create turnovers, and pressure the QB. Some might find that flawed because he valued RBs in the first round, and valued pass rush edge players even if they were bad against the run, which is kind of the opposite of what Ballard does.) Ballard got some good veteran production out of Autry and Houston, but his young guys didn't meet the task when those vets left. I will say, while Paye and Dayo are no Freeney and Mathis, they're pretty good, and I think people are somewhat dismissive of them.

 

As I've said, I would rather reallocate cap resources to specific "premium" positions than keep paying a high cost for a non-pass rush NT. But I don't agree that Ballard has no regard for positional value. 

Saying that "he values them all the same" is too far, agreed.  Its meant to be summary hyperbole that can be explored in more detail if we wanted to write novels here.

 

I think there is no doubt that he does not seem to separate differences in positions as much as he should.  He has made comments about their being little reason to have an elite LT over an elite LG...as long as one of the two is elite it doesn't really matter which one it is.  Obviously said during Nelson contract time when we also had a hole at LT, but I think he actually believes it based upon actions.  

 

I think his pass rushing philosophy is to have very good players rotate throughout the game and in situations.  I don't think he feels its necessary to have a Bosa or a Watt or a Garrett.  He has never been in a position to draft one, I get it, but he also doesn't seem to acknowledge the need for one.  Like it's the same thing to have two $15M rotational guys over the one $30M guy. 

 

I can't see where he values explosion in the WR position.  More like height and length over explosion.  I do think Frank influenced this, but if the GM just goes with it for 6 years, then he probably sees it the same way.  Or has a blind spot to see it much differently.   And PC being drafted with pick 59 and some of the other lower draft picks just makes my point.   I expect SS to educate Ballard a bit on this.

 

Pass protection, pass rush, and WR dynamics is where this team has generally had its problems.  As well as coverage LB, and here he just resigned Franklin (maybe there is a plan to get a better coverage LB somewhere) .

 

IMO, the blind spot is bigger than just not finding talent at certain positions.

[Superman]

26 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

I’d go one step further and say Ballard values certain positions more than most around the NFL do.  I know I didn’t like it when I heard it reported he told a local reporter he sees oline and dline as premium positions.  I agree they are important but other than an elite pass rushing end which the Colts don’t have I don’t see them as premium positions.  So that’s one area I don’t agree with Ballard but I know that’s who he is so it is what is to me.  

 

I get where you're coming from, but I don't even know if this is true. The biggest example of Ballard "overvaluing" a non premium position is Quenton Nelson, who is only the 4th highest paid guard in the NFL. The Browns set the market for Grover Stewart when they paid Dalvin Tomlinson $14.25m/year last year.

 

I also think there's a lot more grey area around the league regarding which positions are most valued, and how that value is realized. For example, a team might value WRs, but think the draft value at that position is inflated. I think 3T is a premium position if the player is a consistent pass rush threat, and I might prefer a good 3T to an edge rusher. You don't mention LT, not sure if that's intentional; I think most people view LT as premium, but I think it's a little inflated because a good coach and QB are the foundation of pass protection, not the LT (of course LT is still important). 

 

So I think trench play is highly valued around the league, more than fans and Internet experts realize. And I'd argue that, after 2023 when so many QBs got hurt, and teams couldn't run the ball, OL trench play -- including interior OL -- will continue to be more highly valued than fans think it should be.

 

Where I think I separate from Ballard on DL is I don't think you need to spend premium money on DL if they can't rush the passer. I think non-pass rush DL are highly replaceable, and what's important is depth, not whether a good NT knocks half a yard off your opponents rushing average.  But I think an interior DL who is a nightmare to block on passing downs is critically important.

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Saying that "he values them all the same" is too far, agreed.  Its meant to be summary hyperbole that can be explored in more detail if we wanted to write novels here.

 

I think there is no doubt that he does not seem to separate differences in positions as much as he should.  He has made comments about their being little reason to have an elite LT over an elite LG...as long as one of the two is elite it doesn't really matter which one it is.  Obviously said during Nelson contract time when we also had a hole at LT, but I think he actually believes it based upon actions.  

 

I think his pass rushing philosophy is to have very good players rotate throughout the game and in situations.  I don't think he feels its necessary to have a Bosa or a Watt or a Garrett.  He has never been in a position to draft one, I get it, but he also doesn't seem to acknowledge the need for one.  Like it's the same thing to have two $15M rotational guys over the one $30M guy. 

 

I can't see where he values explosion in the WR position.  More like height and length over explosion.  I do think Frank influenced this, but if the GM just goes with it for 6 years, then he probably sees it the same way.  Or has a blind spot to see it much differently.   And PC being drafted with pick 59 and some of the other lower draft picks just makes my point.   I expect SS to educate Ballard a bit on this.

 

Pass protection, pass rush, and WR dynamics is where this team has generally had its problems.  As well as coverage LB, and here he just resigned Franklin (maybe there is a plan to get a better coverage LB somewhere) .

 

IMO, the blind spot is bigger than just not finding talent at certain positions.

@NewColtsFan  Why would you laugh at this?   It really isn't much different than what Superman is saying.

 

Explain how.

 

 

[DougDew]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

I also think there's a lot more grey area around the league regarding which positions are most valued, and how that value is realized. For example, a team might value WRs, but think the draft value at that position is inflated. I think 3T is a premium position if the player is a consistent pass rush threat, and I might prefer a good 3T to an edge rusher. You don't mention LT, not sure if that's intentional; I think most people view LT as premium, but I think it's a little inflated because a good coach and QB are the foundation of pass protection, not the LT (of course LT is still important). 

 

So I think trench play is highly valued around the league, more than fans and Internet experts realize. And I'd argue that, after 2023 when so many QBs got hurt, and teams couldn't run the ball, OL trench play -- including interior OL -- will continue to be more highly valued than fans think it should be.

Its all highly valued.  But when allocating finite resources, prioritization has to prevail.  It just does.  You don't just resign good/great players because their contracts are coming due. Then feel comfortable that you've now shored up the roster with very good talent....overall.  You yourself don't like the idea of spending yet again more resources on Grover, Franklin, and backup NT....and not the 2024 passing game version of the NFL.  You think Ballard made that choice...and he doesn't have a blind spot there?

 

When Ballard said that it doesn't matter if the LG or the LT is elite, just one of the two matters, I think its a miss. 

 

When he starts to get challenged on what premium positions are, and he says the trenches, I think its a miss...if you had to summarize groups of players into one label.

 

When he finally says that the team needs to get more explosion when it has been about has explosive as its ever been (except 2021 with JT...in the running game though), I think its been a miss to never have said it before.

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Saying that "he values them all the same" is too far, agreed.  Its meant to be summary hyperbole that can be explored in more detail if we wanted to write novels here.

 

Got it. There's been a lot of hyperbole lately, I'm not always sure what's meant to be literal.

 

Quote

He has made comments about their being little reason to have an elite LT over an elite LG...as long as one of the two is elite it doesn't really matter which one it is.

 

 

I mostly agree with Ballard here. I just alluded to this in my response to GC8818. Scheme and QBing can mitigate edge pressure, but it requires good interior blocking to mitigate inside pressure... Inside pressure is more disruptive to a passing attack than edge pressure... You can't scheme interior run blocking, your blockers have to be able to hold up. It's not conventional, but I don't necessarily agree that elite LT is more valuable than elite LG. Obviously, you can't be deficient at either spot.

 

Quote

Pass protection, pass rush, and WR dynamics is where this team has generally had its problems. 

 

I don't fully agree here, either. These have all gone up and down at various times throughout Ballard's tenure. Pass rush has never really been a strength, but it wasn't deficient in 2019-2020. Pass protection was excellent from the second half of 2018 through 2020. TY Hilton was still a 1,200 yard WR in 2018, and then in 2019 they invested in Campbell and Funchess to diversify the pass game, but wound up with Brissett as the QB; Hilton started getting hurt, Funchess got hurt, Campbell got hurt.

 

You might see some of those players differently, but I think injuries and QB instability are what undermined the production in these areas. Not so much roster composition.

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Got it. There's been a lot of hyperbole lately, I'm not always sure what's meant to be literal.

 

 

 

I mostly agree with Ballard here. I just alluded to this in my response to GC8818. Scheme and QBing can mitigate edge pressure, but it requires good interior blocking to mitigate inside pressure... Inside pressure is more disruptive to a passing attack than edge pressure... You can't scheme interior run blocking, your blockers have to be able to hold up. It's not conventional, but I don't necessarily agree that elite LT is more valuable than elite LG. Obviously, you can't be deficient at either spot.

 

 

I don't fully agree here, either. These have all gone up and down at various times throughout Ballard's tenure. Pass rush has never really been a strength, but it wasn't deficient in 2019-2020. Pass protection was excellent from the second half of 2018 through 2020. TY Hilton was still a 1,200 yard WR in 2018, and then in 2019 they invested in Campbell and Funchess to diversify the pass game, but wound up with Brissett as the QB; Hilton started getting hurt, Funchess got hurt, Campbell got hurt.

 

You might see some of those players differently, but I think injuries and QB instability are what undermined the production in these areas. Not so much roster composition.

Its all good.  Thanks for the convo.

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You yourself don't like the idea of spending yet again more resources on Grover, Franklin, and backup NT....and not the 2024 passing game version of the NFL.  You think Ballard made that choice...and he doesn't have a blind spot there?

 

This is the main area where I said I see it differently from Ballard. I think we're on the same page here.

 

Quote

 

When Ballard said that it doesn't matter if the LG or the LT is elite, just one of the two matters, I think its a miss. 

 

When he starts to get challenged on what premium positions are, and he says the trenches, I think its a miss...if you had to summarize groups of players into one label.

 

When he finally says that the team needs to get more explosion when it has been about has explosive as its ever been (except 2021 with JT...in the running game though), I think its been a miss to never have said it before.

 

 

I addressed the LT/LG thing in my previous post. 

 

Regarding the bolded, I think the unrealized strategy in 2019 speaks to a previously established desire to be more dynamic in the passing game. (It seems like you're holding Ballard responsible for not having said this out loud in the past. I think if you go back and listen to some of the pressers in previous years, you'll notice that 80% of the questioning was about the QB position. So I blame the press room for that more than I blame Ballard.) Two years ago, he drafted Alec Pierce. I think they'll draft another good WR prospect this year. 

 

I don't have much doubt that the Colts want a dynamic passing attack. I think they've tried, and for various reasons -- scouting, coaching, QB play, injuries -- it hasn't worked out so far. But it's not because Ballard doesn't value explosive pass catchers, IMO.

[NewColtsFan]

18 minutes ago, DougDew said:

@NewColtsFan  Why would you laugh at this?   It really isn't much different than what Superman is saying.

 

Explain how.

 

 

Comments like this….  
 

How Ballard doesn’t seem to recognize the need for a great pass rusher.   Not sure you realize that there’s not a Bosa, a Watt, or a Garrett in every draft.   Someone is declared the best DE in each draft but very few are at the level of Bosa, or Watt or Garrett.  They are incredibly rare. 
 

Ballard doesn’t seem to recognize the need to have an elite LT over LG.   
 

A preference of two $15m rotational guys over one $30m player. 
 

The whole paragraph about not valuing the need for explosion at WR, punctuated by SS is going to educate CB on this.  BTW, Josh Downs says hello. 
 

Ballard’s blind spot.  
 

Those are the comments that jumped out at me.   I think you’ve had an extraordinary week, and I’ve resisted the temptation to engage.   But this latest I thought at least earned the emoji.   
 

As for Superman…. I said as recently as yesterday that he’s one of the three most important posters in our community.  But that doesn’t mean I agree with everything he believes.  But he’s earned both the benefit of any doubt and my complete respect for the nearly 13 years I’ve been here.
 

Sorry….   Wasn’t meaning to yank your chain.   

 

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

Regarding the bolded, I think the unrealized strategy in 2019 speaks to a previously established desire to be more dynamic in the passing game. (It seems like you're holding Ballard responsible for not having said this out loud in the past. I think if you go back and listen to some of the pressers in previous years, you'll notice that 80% of the questioning was about the QB position. So I blame the press room for that more than I blame Ballard.) Two years ago, he drafted Alec Pierce. I think they'll draft another good WR prospect this year. 

 

I don't have much doubt that the Colts want a dynamic passing attack. I think they've tried, and for various reasons -- scouting, coaching, QB play -- it hasn't worked out so far. But it's not because Ballard doesn't value explosive pass catchers, IMO.

I guess my bias is formed when it was obvious TY was breaking down...and that was when Rivers was here...Rivers had no downfield options because TY was hurt, (but folks blamed that lack of downfield passing on Rivers' arm).   And I think TY was nagging some injuries the year before.

 

The lack of urgency with which he tried to get a down field option was appalling to me, when even the Colts fan base could see how TY and Marvin impacted the IND offense for over a decade.  Not saying the Funchess signing was for that...we needed an X, but only using pick 59 on what was really a pick for a slot, and then lesser picks,  just made me think Ballard doesn't get it. 

 

The AP pick is certainly a down field acknowledgment.  But I still wouldn't call it the same thing as looking for explosion or a dynamic threat on the outside.  And Downs is still meant to be a slot, IMO, even if he his the best slot we've had.

[AKB]

1 hour ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

lol. Hardly. I’ve been vocal enough on this forum that not having consistent qb play is the difference with this team… 

 

and by consistent I mean both on the field and just having the same qb, which we have not since Ryan Grigson was general manager. Think about that… 2016- Luck, 2017-no luck, 2018- luck, 2019- brisset, 2020- rivers, 2021- Wentz, 2022- Ryan, 2023- AR/Minshew… this will be the first year since 2016 that the same qb starts consecutive season openers. That’s why we haven’t won consistently… 

yeah  ballad has had more than enough time to recover from the Luck situation, and the other years you listed are his fault for being content with bridge QBs

[Blueblood23]

1 hour ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Yes we do. They literally have represented the team at various meetings. All 3 are vice-chair and co-owners of the team. Carli was reportedly very involved in the interview process and subsequent hiring of Steichen. 
 

you are just making stuff up to try fit your narrative at this point… We don’t know that Jim has even been involved since December. That is more believable than his daughters (especially Carli who is on the sideline every game with a headset on) don’t have any influence. That’s hilarious to assume that the ones that are in the process of taking the team over, and possibly sooner than later, are not involved in decision-making. Like, what? Have you been involved in a succession plan? They are Jim’s legacy… 

Then if I am to assume what you stated is correct, Colts fans don’t have a lot to look forward to in the future. Ownership is holding them back IMO.

[DougDew]

24 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

How Ballard doesn’t seem to recognize the need for a great pass rusher.   Not sure you realize that there’s not a Bosa, a Watt, or a Garrett in every draft.   Someone is declared the best DE in each draft but very few are at the level of Bosa, or Watt or Garrett.  They are incredibly rare. 

 

24 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

A preference of two $15m rotational guys over one $30m player.

I said that Ballard was not in a position to draft those guys.  But he has also never expressed disappointment in NOT being in a position to draft those guys, like he has expressed disappointment with not being in a position to draft an elite QB.  One comment says he gets it about QB.  The absence of the same comment suggests he doesn't get it when it comes to EDGE.  And yes.  I think he sees two 15 million dollar guys as being the same as one 30 million dollar guy when it comes to seeing pass rush talent.  Values rotation over elite talent, IMO.

 

 

24 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

The whole paragraph about not valuing the need for explosion at WR, punctuated by SS is going to educate CB on this.  BTW, Josh Downs says hello. 

Hello!  Downs is a slot.  PC is a slot.  The two dynamic-ish guys we got have been slots.  Where is the investment in the outside dynamic guy in the 4 years we knew TY no longer had it...and when Ballard himself didn't even want to resign him but was forced by Irsay?  AP?  Fast yes, Dynamic? never shown it in college, IMO.  Pitt?  Nice player.  Much better X than Funchess, but still not THAT guy you would compare to TY.

24 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Ballard’s blind spot.  

Totally supported by my comments in this thread.  Use another term other than Blind spot if its better.  But there is something going on with his overall philosophy that goes beyond simply not being in a position to find talent at positions that other teams seem to cherish more. 

 

And I think Ballard will get better.  Because SS will in fact, educate him about some things.  JMO.

[stitches]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

 

I think his deepest convictions are, in whatever order: A) Draft well and pay your own, B) The trenches are critically important, and C) Free agency is overrated. (I don't have a huge problem with this approach, but you have to be near perfect in the draft, every year, for it to work well.)

 

Agree with that evaluation of what Ballard's philosophy is like. But you know what I realized recently - there is internal inconsistency within those principles. And specifically here I mean between A and C. Is there any reason we should think our own FAs are underrated by the league while the rest of the free agency pool gets "A and B money for B and C players"? Because if not, then why resigning our own provides us with any better value than going out of the organization and signing outside FAs? Example... is Grover's contract better than DJ Reader's contract? Is Pittman's contract any better than Ridley's contract? Is Taylor's contract any better than Josh Jacobs contract? Is Franklin's contract any better than Luvu's contract? etc. And if they are not... or at least not clearly so... then why would signing our own be the preferable path and isn't this putting an artificial limitation on the pool of players we will be entertaining signing? 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I guess my bias is formed when it was obvious TY was breaking down...and that was when Rivers was here...Rivers had no downfield options because TY was hurt, (but folks blamed that lack of downfield passing on Rivers' arm).   And I think TY was nagging some injuries the year before.

 

You're right about TY, but they drafted Campbell and Pittman in back to back years, in the second round. You might disagree with their evaluation of those players, or their intended roles, but they had specific intentions for those players. And both were slowed by injuries -- MPJ in 2020, and Campbell for sure in 2019 and 2020. More on Campbell...

 

Quote

The lack of urgency with which he tried to get a down field option was appalling to me, when even the Colts fan base could see how TY and Marvin impacted the IND offense for over a decade.  Not saying the Funchess signing was for that...we needed an X, but only using pick 59 on what was really a pick for a slot, and then lesser picks,  just made me think Ballard doesn't get it. 

 

I think it would be good to revisit the opening game in 2020 to see what the intention was with Campbell. I feel like you kind of marginalize him as "a slot," when slot receivers have been used for dynamic production for a long time now. To me, it seemed like Campbell was going to be a huge part of the offense in 2020, and then he got hurt on the opening drive of the second game. Again, you might have preferred a different strategy, but I don't agree that this is an indication of Ballard not valuing dynamic receiver play.

 

Quote

The AP pick is certainly a down field acknowledgment.  But I still wouldn't call it the same thing as looking for explosion or a dynamic threat on the outside.  And Downs is still meant to be a slot, IMO, even if he his the best slot we've had.

 

That's odd. He's meant to be a downfield receiver, he runs more go routes than anyone else in the league. But his QBs have been Matt Ryan and Gardner Minshew. Pierce might not be the guy we need him to be, but I think that's what they had in mind by drafting him.

[ShuteAt168]

10 hours ago, OhioColt said:

@dw49

 

Ballard has had his ups and down like any other GM.  The loss of Andrew Luck and the turnover of older veteran QBs has seen mixed results.  Deep down we all hope AR is the future face of our franchise and not shown the door after year four.  Frank Reich wasn’t out top coaching choice more like our third at best option.  Never was a fan of bringing in Carson Wentz.  Defensive coordinators normally last on average 2-3 seasons with a team.  Bradley is on borrowed time, and this very well should be his last year.  Which means do the players we have on defense match the next defensive scheme?

 

Ballard has taken his lumps over his tenure but for the most part.  In 2018, Ballard had his best NFL draft class shortly after joining the Colts organization (Nelson, Leonard, Smith, Lewis, Hines, Franklin).  Ballard’s first draft class had Hooker, when healthy proved to be a good draft pick.  Marlon Mack was a good running back before injuries shortened his tenure here.  Grover Stewart is still here and well loved.  Anthony Walker was another outstanding linebacker.  2019 draft class we got Okereke who still looks like a future HOF.  Khari Willis was a decent safety before his early retirement.  EJ Speed is still here as a starter.  2020 was another outstanding draft class by Ballard and company.  Pittman Jr and Jonathan Taylor are key contributors on offense.  Blackmon, when healthy just had his best season after moving to strong safety.  Danny Pinter showed early promise and just got a contract extension.  His 2021 draft class is still being scrutinized, but Paye and Odeyingbo have been serviceable while Granson has also had his up and down moments.  Will Fries has even proved not so Mr. Irrelevant to the Club.  The 2022 draft class we got Alec Pierce, and like the rest have mentioned also had his up and down moments with different QBs.  Pierce is good with some inconsistent moments in his game, much better than most give credit for.  Jelani Woods is another player that has shown promise one moment but injuries have slowed his career.  Raimann, no question we nailed that pick for our future starting LT spot.  Now is the time for Nick Cross to show why we drafted him and Andrew Ogletree is another player that’s flashed.  Last year’s draft class is still young and yet to be determined but Jaylon Jones looks legit starter and a solid backup.  Obviously, some are going to completely ignore what Ballard has done and drafted during his tenure depending largely on how Richardson does going forward.  Brents is young and under the learning curve which we knew was going to take some time to recover before taking over as a starter.  Josh Downs is what we envision Parris Campbell would have been when we drafted him.  Even Will Mallory had his moments last season in limited action.

 

@AKB I know you continue to rant and rave about Ballard and your own personal feelings about how bad of a job he has done since arriving with the Colts organization.  Since Ballard has been here, my own take, but looking back over Ballard's draft classes with the Club he has made some impressive selections.  Sad to see good to great players leave like Walker then Okereke.  The Colts again imo could use Okereke over Franklin.  Even easier to go back in time and say we should of someone different.  Draft-wise Ballard I give an A grade since he has been here.  Not all have been but clearly enough the Colts known what they are doing, and proof of resigning our own throughout the years laminates this sentiment.  Life without Manning or Luck at QB proven harsh times but serviceable even fielding a borderline playoff team.  As fans we should clearly be looking forward to the future under Shane.  Bradley should be on the hot seat.  The Colts should be done signing big name free agents and still hanging onto hope we resign Blackmon.  

 

I trust Ballard and company to continue building through the draft.  Par for the course we draft 3-4 players who will be with us for years to come.  Yes, we missed out on advancing to the playoffs.  Our quarterback selections since Luck have been an ongoing issue and is it resolved now long-term, pray so, so say we all.  Our offense is one of the better ones in the league.  Losing Taylor to an injury even hurt us that season.  Once again, our defensive back situation appears to be our Achillies heal and some question our linebackers.  Got to trust the system.  It's not perfect nor have we been dealt a perfect hand, but we make do with what we got.  Rather barely miss the playoffs than have multiple seasons like the Lions had when they couldn't even win one game.  

Re-signing guys off teams that don’t make the playoffs doesn’t exactly confirm those are guys you want to keep around. No, we don’t have to “trust the system.” I’ve seen what the system has resulted in for seven years. 

[DougDew]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

You're right about TY, but they drafted Campbell and Pittman in back to back years, in the second round. You might disagree with their evaluation of those players, or their intended roles, but they had specific intentions for those players. And both were slowed by injuries -- MPJ in 2020, and Campbell for sure in 2019 and 2020. More on Campbell...

I keep it simple.  I think in terms of Marvin and Reggie.  TY and Reggie, etc..  The fact that PC was thought to develop into a successor to TY and "doing some things" just underscores my other feelings about the lack of urgency to fill important roles.  You could also say that we drafted Deon Cain to eventually develop into that guy, or Ashton Dulin.

 

PC was drafted as slot when TY was still the starter.  Ballard simply invested in TY's future cheaply.  Some suggest he should go WR at 15 this year.  The guys talked about getting drafted there are the kinds of WRs I'm talking about.  Not someone that necessarily develops from a slot and does nice things on the outside.

 

And I'm not going through every draft, but I think you would even acknowledge that we could have taken Deebo, AJ Brown, maybe even Lockett and they all would have been better TY replacement candidates than PC even though that's not their primary role either.

 

Reggie, Funchess, and Pitt are a different discussion.  But Pitt deserves to be acknowledged for what he is.  And with the Funchess signing and then Pitt on the heels of that, Ballard seems to express more urgency with the X receiver than the (outside) Z.  Or maybe just understands it better, and he can find the right guy better.  He understands the easier spot to fill, the lower hanging fruit.

 

 

[ShuteAt168]

4 hours ago, r a y s k i said:

If people want free agency warriors as their team, there is plenty of out there. Deal with it, Indy has never been an FA team, it isn't a Ballard thing, fans being surprised about this must have been here for about 5 mins

I don’t care whether the Colts are a “free agency” team or a “build through draft” team or a combination. Could not care less. I just want a winning team and a playoff team. If Ballard could provide that, I’d be a fan, but he hasn’t for seven years. Most sports fans are impatient for their team to win. It’s remarkable to me how Ballard fans are so OK with mediocrity, heck, less than mediocrity. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

Agree with that evaluation of what Ballard's philosophy is like. But you know what I realized recently - there is internal inconsistency within those principles. And specifically here I mean between A and C. Is there any reason we should think our own FAs are underrated by the league while the rest of the free agency pool gets "A and B money for B and C players"? Because if not, then why resigning our own provides us with any better value than going out of the organization and signing outside FAs? Example... is Grover's contract better than DJ Reader's contract? Is Pittman's contract any better than Ridley's contract? Is Taylor's contract any better than Josh Jacobs contract? Is Franklin's contract any better than Luvu's contract? etc. And if they are not... or at least not clearly so... then why would signing our own be the preferable path and isn't this putting an artificial limitation on the pool of players we will be entertaining signing? 

 

No, I think this is simple: The devil you know. Not saying it's right, but explaining why I don't think A and C are at odds with each other.

 

And then, historically, we know that players who change teams in free agency do not live up to their contracts. So he'd rather keep the guy the team is familiar with, that the coaches know how to use and motivate, than replace him in free agency for a potential improvement that's probably marginal at best, or a failure at worst.

 

There's also a cap management benefit to extending Franklin vs signing Luvu, particularly when you have a strict cap management philosophy.

 

And while I don't have a huge problem with Ballard's free agency philosophy, I do think at times it gets applied more rigidly than I think it should. At the right time, for the right player, it's okay to pay an extra 10% for the chance to improve your roster. 

[Solid84]

18 minutes ago, stitches said:

Agree with that evaluation of what Ballard's philosophy is like. But you know what I realized recently - there is internal inconsistency within those principles. And specifically here I mean between A and C. Is there any reason we should think our own FAs are underrated by the league while the rest of the free agency pool gets "A and B money for B and C players"? Because if not, then why resigning our own provides us with any better value than going out of the organization and signing outside FAs? Example... is Grover's contract better than DJ Reader's contract? Is Pittman's contract any better than Ridley's contract? Is Taylor's contract any better than Josh Jacobs contract? Is Franklin's contract any better than Luvu's contract? etc. And if they are not... or at least not clearly so... then why would signing our own be the preferable path and isn't this putting an artificial limitation on the pool of players we will be entertaining signing? 

I’ve always thought Ballard’s view on free agency was pretty arrogant. 
 

He’s said before they set a value on a player and will not go above it. It’s why he keeps getting out bid on good players. The flaw is: HE doesn’t set the value - the market does. It’s where his A money for B players comes from and it’s just arrogant to think the other 31 GMs are wrong. 
 

Now it’s fine if you don’t want to pay a player what the market suggests he’s worth, but Ballard consistently gets out bid. That only shows his approach and way of assigning value to players is flawed in my opinion. 
 

Then there’s his way of prioritizing his own players. There’s a flaw somewhere in their self-scouting and evaluation process. Maybe even in their pro-scouting process. How can they not, over so long a period of time, identify the need for better pass rush and coverage on the defense? This need to keep their own continues to keep this team from getting better. 

[jvan1973]

4 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I’ve always thought Ballard’s view on free agency was pretty arrogant. 
 

He’s said before they set a value on a player and will not go above it. It’s why he keeps getting out bid on good players. The flaw is: HE doesn’t set the value - the market does. It’s where his A money for B players comes from and it’s just arrogant to think the other 31 GMs are wrong. 
 

Now it’s fine if you don’t want to pay a player what the market suggests he’s worth, but Ballard consistently gets out bid. That only shows his approach and way of assigning value to players is flawed in my opinion. 
 

Then there’s his way of prioritizing his own players. There’s a flaw somewhere in their self-scouting and evaluation process. Maybe even in their pro-scouting process. How can they, not over so long a period of time, identify the need for better pass rush and coverage on the defense? This need to keep their own continues to keep this team from getting better. 

There are several of those 31 other gms that agree with that same philosophy 

[Solid84]

3 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

There are several of those 31 other gms that agree with that same philosophy 

Nope. No team uses free agency the way the Colts do. At least no good teams and there’s not much merit to emulating a losing strategy. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

And I'm not going through every draft, but I think you would even acknowledge that we could have taken Deebo, AJ Brown, maybe even Lockett and they all would have been better TY replacement projects than PC even though that's not their primary role either.

 

I meant to mention this. I give Ballard some grace because Campbell got hurt, but a lot of good WRs went in the second and third round in 2019, and we didn't any of them.

 

Lockett doesn't fit, drafted in 2015.

 

Also, philosophically, I think there are different views of X, Z, slot guys than you want to acknowledge. There's no reason a slot guy can't be your most dynamic receiver, and I think big slot is used all around the league in the best offenses. I think even the most dynamic Z guys play more slot than most people realize. I know there's an ideal prototype, and some players only fit one spot (Pittman is an X, he plays big slot also but I don't think he adds a lot of value there), but this is all pretty fluid, IMO. My point is that I'm okay with projecting a slot guy as your dynamic receiving threat, if you have a plan and can pull it off. It's just an unconventional way of getting there.

 

Quote

Ballard seems to express more urgency with the X receiver than the (outside) Z.  Or maybe just understands it better, and he can find the right guy better.

 

I think the X is more abundant, and the Z comes at a much higher premium. This is the year where we're in good position to get a potential Z, but I still don't think it happens, and a part of that is Ballard's philosophy with draft capital. We'll see.

[NewColtsFan]

42 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

I said that Ballard was not in a position to draft those guys.  But he has also never expressed disappointment in NOT being in a position to draft those guys, like he has expressed disappointment with not being in a position to draft an elite QB.  One comment says he gets it about QB.  The absence of the same comment suggests he doesn't get it when it comes to EDGE.  And yes.  I think he sees two 15 million dollar guys as being the same as one 30 million dollar guy when it comes to seeing pass rush talent.  Values rotation over elite talent, IMO.

 

 

Hello!  Downs is a slot.  PC is a slot.  The two dynamic-ish guys we got have been slots.  Where is the investment in the outside dynamic guy in the 4 years we knew TY no longer had it...and when Ballard himself didn't even want to resign him but was forced by Irsay?  AP?  Fast yes, Dynamic? never shown it in college, IMO.  Pitt?  Nice player.  Much better X than Funchess, but still not THAT guy you would compare to TY.

Totally supported by my comments in this thread.  Use another term other than Blind spot if its better.  But there is something going on with his overall philosophy that goes beyond simply not being in a position to find talent at positions that other teams seem to cherish more. 

 

And I think Ballard will get better.  Because SS will in fact, educate him about some things.  JMO.

First graph….   You’re criticizing Ballard for what he hasn’t said.   Maybe he doesn’t feel the need to state the obvious.  
 

The $15m vs $30m player.   You call the $15m guy rotational.  I don’t think of ANY $15m player as rotational.  Or $12m or $10m.   Those guys are major important players.    And I don’t think it’s obvious that having one $30m player is necessarily better than having two $15m players.  You’re free to disagree.  
 

Second graph….   You’re not the only poster who makes the slot argument and I think all of you are wrong.   Slot receivers are receivers.   Their receptions count just as much as an X.   So do their first downs and touchdowns.  Over at Miami, they have Waddle and Hill.  One of them is a flanker, or slot.  I think it’s Hill.  Do you think Hill is not valuable.  Same with SF….  Samuel is their flanker.  He plays some slot.  Is there a problem there?   I think the slot argument is a poor one.  
 

Lots of opinion in your post that you think are fact.   Like drafting PC at 59 is somehow proof of anything.  Up in Seattle,  DK Metcalf was picked after PC in the same draft.  Tyler Lockett was taken at the top of the third round in another draft.  Very good receivers can be found all over the place.  There is no magic draft pick number. 
 

But to your final point, that Steichen is going to educate him….  Guess what?   It’s already happened.  In the job interview.  The two men talked about what’s important to them, what they value.   Remember Ballard said they see things the same way.   So conversation you think is GOING to happen already has.  
 

By now, it should be obvious that Ballard tries to give his HC what they want within reason.  Ballard doesn’t need to be educated.  Steichen will tell him who he wants.  Ballard will try to make it happen.  But there are no guarantees, the other 31 teams may want some of the same players. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Nope. No team uses free agency the way the Colts do. At least no good teams and there’s not much merit to emulating a losing strategy. 

 

I think you're wrong on this. Ballard is definitely more conservative than a lot of other GMs, but now and historically there have been plenty of good teams that do not play in the rich free agent waters.

 

I also think you're focusing on the top end of free agency, which is mostly where the 'outbidding' you reference would come into play. 

[GoColts8818]

25 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

Re-signing guys off teams that don’t make the playoffs doesn’t exactly confirm those are guys you want to keep around. No, we don’t have to “trust the system.” I’ve seen what the system has resulted in for seven years. 

If most of Ballard’s teams had Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck as the QB and not Carson Wentz, an aging Matt Ryan and Phillip Rivers, or backups in Jacoby Brissett and Gardner Minshew do you think they made the playoffs?  If you think so then it supports Ballard’s theory that this team has been missing the QB peace.  Last year was a wash on it because of Richardson’s injuries.  Hopefully over this year and next we get a shot to see what Ballard’s roster building can do with a legit franchise QB.  I think it’s telling the only two years under Ballard the team had above average to good QB play all season they made the playoffs. 

 

Does Ballard deserve the blame for the QB spot?  That’s a complicated question because on one hand he is the GM but on the other his hands have been tied there.  For starters no one saw the Andrew Luck situation coming so there wasn’t really anything Ballard could do the year they started Jacoby.  The year they had Rivers it worked.  Wentz was clearly a Reich decision more than Ballard.  Then if you recall it was Irsay who told Ballard up his offer for Ryan so maybe Ryan was more Irsay.  He also wasn’t in position to really grab one post Luck until last year in the draft.  Then he did.  So that’s why for better or worse he’s tied to Richardson now.

 

Irsay pretty much looked at Ballard after the 22 season and decided he saw good teams minus the QB spot and decided what had happened at the QB spot wasn’t on Ballard’s shoulders so he decided to give him a chance with his QB.  Then his QB got hurt before we could really find out much about him.  So that’s why Ballard’s job in all likelihood isn’t on the line this year unless they do something like go 0-17 with Richardson starting all year.  
 

You can disagree with the decision Irsay made or the logic he appears to have used to get there but that’s what happened.  Irsay has bought into Ballard’s teams haven’t had the QBs they need and Irsay appears to think that isn’t all Ballard’s fault.  Irsay also seems to think if they had the QB play they need then they would be a playoff team.  If you believe that’s true then keeping your own a year after you went 9-8 with a backup QB playing almost all year makes sense if you expect to get your QB back which the Colts do.

[Solid84]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I think you're wrong on this. Ballard is definitely more conservative than a lot of other GMs, but now and historically there have been plenty of good teams that do not play in the rich free agent waters.

 

I also think you're focusing on the top end of free agency, which is mostly where the 'outbidding' you reference would come into play. 

It’s not just about paying expensive FAs. He doesn’t really use the mid-tier either. 
 

I’ve said earlier in this thread there are plenty of good players signed to $8-13m each year, but you could easily find players signed to $5m THIS year that would improve this team. It’s frankly laughable how he refuses to plug holes with good talent. Year after year he brings in the Darrel Bakers and the Tony Browns and then he’s baffled it doesn’t work out. 
 

That’s my biggest gripe with Ballard. It’s not about signing big name FAs, because I fully understand there are some big trade offs when you sign guys like that. 

[DougDew]

34 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I meant to mention this. I give Ballard some grace because Campbell got hurt, but a lot of good WRs went in the second and third round in 2019, and we didn't any of them.

 

Lockett doesn't fit, drafted in 2015.

 

Also, philosophically, I think there are different views of X, Z, slot guys than you want to acknowledge. There's no reason a slot guy can't be your most dynamic receiver, and I think big slot is used all around the league in the best offenses. I think even the most dynamic Z guys play more slot than most people realize. I know there's an ideal prototype, and some players only fit one spot (Pittman is an X, he plays big slot also but I don't think he adds a lot of value there), but this is all pretty fluid, IMO. My point is that I'm okay with projecting a slot guy as your dynamic receiving threat, if you have a plan and can pull it off. It's just an unconventional way of getting there.

 

 

I think the X is more abundant, and the Z comes at a much higher premium. This is the year where we're in good position to get a potential Z, but I still don't think it happens, and a part of that is Ballard's philosophy with draft capital. We'll see.

 

34 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

First graph….   You’re criticizing Ballard for what he hasn’t said.   Maybe he doesn’t feel the need to state the obvious.  
 

The $15m vs $30m player.   You call the $15m guy rotational.  I don’t think of ANY $15m player as rotational.  Or $12m or $10m.   Those guys are major important players.    And I don’t think it’s obvious that having one $30m player is necessarily better than having two $15m players.  You’re free to disagree.  
 

Second graph….   You’re not the only poster who makes the slot argument and I think all of you are wrong.   Slot receivers are receivers.   Their receptions count just as much as an X.   So do their first downs and touchdowns.  Over at Miami, they have Waddle and Hill.  One of them is a flanker, or slot.  I think it’s Hill.  Do you think Hill is not valuable.  Same with SF….  Samuel is their flanker.  He plays some slot.  Is there a problem there?   I think the slit argument is a poor one.  
 

Lots of opinion in your post that you think are fact.   Like drafting PC at 59 is somehow proof of anything.  Up in Seattle,  DK Metcalf was picked after PC in the same draft.  Tyler Lockett was taken at the top of the third round.  Very good receivers can be found all over the place.  There is no magic number. 
 

But to your final point, that Steichen is going to educate him….  Guess what?   It’s already happened.  In the job interview.  The two men talked about what’s important to them, what they value.   Remember Ballard said they see things the same way.   So conversation you think is GOING to happen already has.  
 

By now, it should be obvious that Ballard tries to give his HC what they want within reason.  Ballard doesn’t need to be educated.  Steichen will tell him who he wants.  Ballard will try to make it happen.  But there are no guarantees, the other 31 teams may want some of the same players. 

I don't want to have two convos about the same thing with two different people.  And...I'm talking about philosophy, which is conceptual, and its my opinion of his philosophy over a period of 7 years.  So its not about going down rabbit holes of drafts exactly who was drafted ahead of whom, specific player misses and opportunities missed, etc. over those 7 years

 

Let me say the same things a different way.

 

If a GM does not prioritize positions, and just goes by the idea that "Other than QB, I don't really care where my 7 other elite players are, just as long as I have 7 elite players"   Combined with..."my guy is the best on the market, so I want to resign him"

 

You might look over the football field on opening day and see that you've got your highest paid guys, freshest signees, or the most talent at the 21 positions at:

LG, 3T, NT, backup NT, ILB, Slot, and the RB who runs between the OTs...(all INTERIOR position if you will) .and then realize  "oh, poop, who do I have to play along each boundary".  Well, I've got a great X.   (And folks blamed this lack of explosion on Frank?  Ballard just signed three of them)

 

You need better dispersion than that.  It has to be managed over several cycles so the talent just doesn't end up concentrated almost entirely between the hash marks.   It has to be disbursed from boundary to boundary, and all three levels of the O and D.  There has to be priorities.  There just has to be. 

 

And getting lucky with a 3rd round LT playing like a 1st rounder, or drafting a RG that plays well at RT, can't be relied upon to rescue a flawed process. 

 

JMO.

 

[stitches]

35 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No, I think this is simple: The devil you know. Not saying it's right, but explaining why I don't think A and C are at odds with each other.

 

And then, historically, we know that players who change teams in free agency do not live up to their contracts. So he'd rather keep the guy the team is familiar with, that the coaches know how to use and motivate, than replace him in free agency for a potential improvement that's probably marginal at best, or a failure at worst.

 

There's also a cap management benefit to extending Franklin vs signing Luvu, particularly when you have a strict cap management philosophy.

 

And while I don't have a huge problem with Ballard's free agency philosophy, I do think at times it gets applied more rigidly than I think it should. At the right time, for the right player, it's okay to pay an extra 10% for the chance to improve your roster. 

I still don't think the devil you know reasoning answers the question - why do we think in a league that according to our own philosophy overvalues free agents, it's only our own free agents that they don't overvalue and we get them for what they are actually worth? I just call nonsense... we can fool ourselves by saying "well we know them better than the rest of the league", which might be true... but again... this doesn't answer why wouldn't they value them higher(rather than lower) than us since it's apparently what they do with almost every other FA?

 

I think in an ideal world our GM would pursue FAs based on what they can provide to the team rather than based what types of investments we've already made into a certain player. IMO it's just too limiting. Ballard pretty much by his own volition limits himself in FA to extremely narrow pool of possible signings... and huge majority of them are the players he has already drafted/signed. I agree with @Solid84 here,,, there is a certain level of arroggance and confirmation bias here.