Colts offseason discussion / Ballard Grievances (merge)

[Solid84]

4 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

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. 

It’s also about how ressources are allocated on the team currently. You can’t build your defense to stop the run and expect to have success in the modern NFL. It’s borderline malpractice how he’s spending money on defense in my opinion. 
 

We need to vastly improve against the passing game. Doubling down on run stopping DTs and extending a run stopping LB when our secondary is in shambles and our pass rush is well below average is laughable. 

[ShuteAt168]

20 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. 

This is exactly right—FAs aren’t overpriced, it’s what they cost. Market value, as you say. Buy the house or pass but don’t suggest the new owners are stupid — they might be OK with market value because of the school system. The Ballard hate or love seems much focused on his this or that philosophy because Ballard is so rigid and so egotistical about it. “I set the price and that’s it.” “I build from the trenches! My philosophy and that won’t change!” OK, cool, how’s that been working out. I don’t care if Ballard signs big FAs or if “builds through the draft and only pays Horse shoe guys” or a combination. I just want wins and playoff appearances. … By the by, there have been good conversations by the football geniuses on the board today and it was fun to read! 

[OLD FAN MAN]

33 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

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

who

[ShuteAt168]

22 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

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.

This is a good response and well said. I guess I’d respond that, well, he didn’t have Manning or Luck and it’s his job to deal with it successfully. Sometimes it feels like Ballard fans think no GM ever besides Ballard has dealt w QB issues. And we’re not just talking the past year regarding keep your own guys but seven. But again, I see your points. 

[BlackTiger]

Things have gotten very quiet while we still have a pretty glaring hole at outside corner and free safety.  I could still see passing on both in the first round if one of the better WRs or Bowers is there but we are going to get scored on a lot again.

 

Im starting to like Cross more at SS.  He was drafted really young but seems to be trending up and has the right skill set

[GoColts8818]

27 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

This is a good response and well said. I guess I’d respond that, well, he didn’t have Manning or Luck and it’s his job to deal with it successfully. Sometimes it feels like Ballard fans think no GM ever besides Ballard has dealt w QB issues. And we’re not just talking the past year regarding keep your own guys but seven. But again, I see your points. 

I agree its his job but like I said it’s where it gets complicated because there was nothing he could have done about Jacoby.  Rivers worked.  Wentz wasn’t his call clearly and if Irsay was the one telling him to up his offer for Ryan then Ryan may not have been either.

 

He’s not the only GM to deal with QB issues.  However, Irsay appears to have judged him on it after 22 and seems to feel there were a lot of things that happened with the QB spot that wasn’t Ballard’s fault which is probably why he got a pass on it from Owner.

 

Whats clear though is going forward Ballard is tied to Richardson.  That’s Ballard’s guy and there is no denying it.  So if Richardson doesn’t work it’s not going to matter how good of a team he’s built minus the QB he’s going to be shown the door if they aren’t winning,  that’s just probably not going to happen this year though unless the Colts do something like go 0-17 with Richardson playing every snap.  

[Dobbinblitz]

Ballard needs to be judged on his record. He has not hit on nearly enough of his draft picks to to stay dug in on almost exclusively draft only team construction with few exceptions. Have a lot of respect for his "Value Board" drafting, but he has not been drafting the next Antoine Bethea's in the 6th round(s) either.  He has often been blinded by athletic traits (RAS) over on the field instincts and productivity. The odds will generally always work against him when he misses on a mid round pick and the positional depth consists of UFA's. There is no GM even close to perfect in the draft which is why a good majority cover their sins by other means outside of the draft.

 

Ballard has moved his chips to the middle of the table with his legacy draft pick - AR.  What is the value in a wait until we see how it works approach. He is young and by standards very inexperienced with a small college resume. Ballard should be doing everything conceivable to surround him, especially with at least some concern about his durability dating back to his college career.

 

Ballard hit the mark when he said the team needs to get more explosive. Well.... I hope he has the draft of his life. Filling the needs of impactful players in the secondary. pass rush, quality OL depth. and a stretch the field receiver (Still Waiting)- to leverage  AR's cannon arm - all becomes a tall order to fill in a seven round draft and post June cuts.

It is a stubborn approach that has yielded the record he carries today.

[DougDew]

51 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

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.

If Ballard's reasoning is that we have been missing the QB piece, and that it is the key to our problems over all else, then why did we trade pick 13 for Buckner and not save it for Love or use it as funds to move up?   We need a QB, unless it keeps us from getting a DT?

 

Who knows how it would have turned out. Love could have played better quicker if he didn't have to sit behind Rodgers. 

 

But if the "missing the QB piece" is synonymous with Ballard simply being a victim of some NFL environment that's out of his control, it sounds a bit whiny, don't you think?

[BlackTiger]

16 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

To do what the Chiefs did took balls and was beyond smart looking at it now.

Yeah I dont think they ever said too much about what they saw from him in college but that story about the draft is kind of interesting.  They made it sound like PM wanted to go to the Cheifs and especially Andy Reid.  I think they said it was the Saints that were going to take him and he said you guys should trade up for me when they met

[csmopar]

On 3/21/2024 at 3:49 PM, Superman said:

 

Kravitz, is that you?

Haha no

 

Ballard is so good, he should be league commissioner!

[DougDew]

1 hour 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.

Okay, replace Lockett with McLaurin.  Probably still better outside candidates...better size than PC.....more traditional outside skills.  Compared to the WRs mentioned, PC was still a slot, IMO, and that's what I think he was drafted to be most of the time.

 

If Ballard wants his Z to be from the slot, I guess that just feeds into the idea that he really looks at the interior positions as being key.  Every one of them.  Maybe his blind spot is lack of peripheral vision to notice that football is also played on either side the hash marks. LOL.

[Solid84]

8 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Haha no

 

Ballard is so good, he should be league commissioner!

So, you believe this or are you just trolling?

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Solid84 said:

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. 

 

This is where I kind of lose the narrative. He does use the mid tier. Davis this year (I'm not a big fan, but that's squarely mid tier), Ebukam last year (along with other specific needs, like Gay and Minshew), Gilmore in 2022, etc.. It's not just Bakers and Browns. 

 

In the three year period where I think we should have had a window -- 2019 to 2021 -- he did even more of this. In 2021, AC retired, he signed Fisher (not my favorite, but he wasn't as awful as recent discourse would suggest), Te'vi, and Davenport, along with guys at other positions. In 2020, Rivers, Rhodes, and traded for Buckner. In 2019, Funchess, Houston. Does none of that qualify as plugging holes with good talent?

 

You keep saying the bolded, but it seems like the 'sets his value and won't budge' angle applies most directly to top tier free agents.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

20 hours ago, BeanDiasucci said:

I don't need to take a look. About half of the GMs or so have a better record than Ballard's sub .500, right? I don't think many people are saying he's been bad. More like he's been kind of average, or a little better than average, and we're hoping for more than that.

 

Actually, sub .500 with No Division titles and only 1 playoff win going on 8 years in a weak division is probably below average. 

But I get your point of being easy on the guy. Lol

 

Not to mention his first HC hire, (well almost) would have been Josh McDaniels.....if he didn't Bolt at the alter. 

[RollerColt]

30 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Haha no

 

Ballard is so good, he should be league commissioner!

lol you and AKB seem to be playing a game and you’re both winning. 
 

In all seriousness, I think Ballard isn’t making any “desperation” moves because he either doesn’t cave to being on the hot seat, and or Irsay has basically told him he has a few years to rebuild. 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

 (And folks blamed this lack of explosion on Frank?  Ballard just signed three of them)

 

I have to call this out because it seems like a significant misrepresentation. I don't think people blamed Reich for a lack of explosive pass catchers. I think people blamed Reich for an overall poor offense that lacked rhythm and identity, especially in 2022.

 

Also, you're saying you think Steichen will be changing Ballard's mind on this, to what extent do you really think the HC plays a role in the kind of WRs that are brought in? 

 

Quote

 

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. 

 

 

I agree, but I don't know that you let really good players in their mid 20s walk in free agency to accommodate players that aren't even on your roster yet. I think you keep drafting and trying to hit at the positions at which you want to improve. And when those players hit their late 20s and 30s, maybe you let them walk, but hopefully you have already improved at the other positions.

 

Quote

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. 

 

I think this is a really hardworking way to invalidate the front office. There are lots of good players at "premium" positions who were drafted outside of the first round, LT included. Sneed would have made everyone happy, and he was a 4th rounder.

 

When your main strategy is to draft and develop good players -- and I'd argue that's every team's main strategy, with a few, short-lived exceptions -- it's a success when you hit on a mid round guy and he becomes a starting caliber player, especially at a critical position. That's not a flawed process, IMO. 

[Solid84]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is where I kind of lose the narrative. He does use the mid tier. Davis this year (I'm not a big fan, but that's squarely mid tier), Ebukam last year (along with other specific needs, like Gay and Minshew), Gilmore in 2022, etc.. It's not just Bakers and Browns. 

 

In the three year period where I think we should have had a window -- 2019 to 2021 -- he did even more of this. In 2021, AC retired, he signed Fisher (not my favorite, but he wasn't as awful as recent discourse would suggest), Te'vi, and Davenport, along with guys at other positions. In 2020, Rivers, Rhodes, and traded for Buckner. In 2019, Funchess, Houston. Does none of that qualify as plugging holes with good talent?

There's truth in this, but I'm not talking about 1-2 year guys.

 

I'm talking about finding a solution to a problem that we can then call "plugged" for 4 years or more.

 

Rivers - 1 year.

Gilmore - 1 year.

Fisher - Barely 1 year of actual playing time and there were better options.

Rhodes - 2 years

Funchess - 1 year.

Houston - 2 years.

Ebukam - About the only guy I'm happy with.

 

And to be clear, I'm not trying to move the goalposts, I'm trying to clarify what I mean. If Ballard doesn't hit in the draft I want him to be more proactive in bringing in good talent the team can build around instead of just pushing the problem ahead of us a year or two at most.

 

Ebukam is the ONLY guy I see us keeping around for long. I think he's the only one that's signed a contract for more than 2 years.

 

Quote

You keep saying the bolded, but it seems like the 'sets his value and won't budge' angle applies most directly to top tier free agents.

I guess that depends on how you define top tier free agents. I'd have loved if we went after Huff who I think the Eagles got the bargain of the decade on. Sure, $17m is a lot of money, but for the 2nd most efficient pass rusher last season who's only 26 years old I think it's a steal. I would've signed him for that money 10 times over instead of signing Stewart to his new contract.

 

Ballard has basically not signed any free agents to north of $12.5m that isn't his own I think. Depending on the position that's not top tier money.

[BlackTiger]

Anyone else wonder if Jims poor health could also be buying CB some time?  I dont think its the most important factor but if its a close call on getting rid of him and Jims health is bad he might not want to shake things up

[DougDew]

34 minutes ago, Superman said:

I have to call this out because it seems like a significant misrepresentation. I don't think people blamed Reich for a lack of explosive pass catchers. I think people blamed Reich for an overall poor offense that lacked rhythm and identity, especially in 2022.

 

Also, you're saying you think Steichen will be changing Ballard's mind on this, to what extent do you really think the HC plays a role in the kind of WRs that are brought in? 

Comments that Frank valued the bigger slower contested catch guys to fit his three button hook at the same time route trees.  That Frank told Ballard what kind of WR he wanted, and the assumption was that the lack of dynamic guys was Frank's fault.  I'm commenting on what I read, not what I think.  What I think is that Ballard has a profile for what he wants on the outside, and its about height and length, and saves the movement guy for the slot.  

 

I think SS sees the value in AJ Brown and Donte Smith over the guys we have.  Pitt probably works fine, but I'm giving AP a short rope in SS eyes unless he can show that he moves better than he does.  Maybe he does on all-22, and I'm fine with AP being the eventual TY/Donte guy. 

 

I criticize Ballard's drafting for what its shown to be through last season, and reserve the right to change my mind if the guys he drafted develop into dynamic players.  It hasn't yet happened with EDGEs, and not yet with the outside Z guy yet.  I think its because his philosophy focuses on the wrong traits for those positions...maybe stoutness over bend and movement....thinks of most players as interior-ish types of players more than he should, and has a blind spot as to the differences there should be.

 

If we draft an edge that actually has bend, and draft an outside fast guy that can also move laterally, I'll think that SS influenced Ballard to see some things differently, and not think that Ballard has actually been prioritizing those traits for 7 years before, but just sucking at finding it.

34 minutes ago, Superman said:

I think this is a really hardworking way to invalidate the front office. There are lots of good players at "premium" positions who were drafted outside of the first round, LT included. Sneed would have made everyone happy, and he was a 4th rounder.

 

When your main strategy is to draft and develop good players -- and I'd argue that's every team's main strategy, with a few, short-lived exceptions -- it's a success when you hit on a mid round guy and he becomes a starting caliber player, especially at a critical position. That's not a flawed process, IMO. 

Raimann is a stud.  Stud LTs go high.  No team, none, that has a gaping hole at LT, waits to draft a WR like AP and a RAS project TE before the stud LT, if they really thought the LT was going to be a stud this soon.  Ballard got lucky, not that Raimann would not be a good player by year 3 or 4.  Feeds the idea that as long as you have an elite LG, you don't need a stud LT.  His drafting shows it, and I don't agree with it.  And still another indicator of interior > outside.

 

The other guys who found that stud in later rounds got lucky too.  It doesn't just happen to Ballard.  Luck happens a lot in the NFL when it comes to drafting players in later rounds.

 

Maybe to explain the concept better....Walter Football does "redrafts" of previous drafts.  You can see where he is coming from when you see how much re-slotting he does.  Guys from the 4th and 3rd round go in round 1.  Guys who busted aren't drafted, etc.  Golly, if the GMs only knew on draft day what each player would become.....

[w87r]

2 hours ago, Solid84 said:

You can’t build your defense to stop the run and expect to have success in the modern NFL.

So stopping the run isn't important?

 

 

 

13 of the top 19 rush yards allowed per game defenses, made the playoffs. Packers were the only playoff team ranked outside top 20(#28). Colts were #24.

 

 

Lions #2

49ers #3

Bucs #5

Texans #6

Dolphins #7

Eagles #10

Browns #11

Rams #12

Ravens #14

Bills #15

Cowboys #16

Chiefs #18

Steelers #19

 

 

https://www.footballdb.com/stats/teamstat.html?group=D&cat=T&sort=rushypg

 

 

I would say stopping the run in "modern football" is a little more important than you are making it out to be.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

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 don't think that's the point. What the Colts have almost always done with upcoming free agents is extend them before they hit the market, which typically puts a cap on the player's contract value. It also allows the team to spread out the cap hits more effectively. Outside of Pittman, the players that the Colts really want to build around do not reach free agency, so there's no opportunity for the rest of the league to overvalue them in the market.

 

Quote

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. 

 

I don't think it's about the investment they've already made into the player. I think it's about having a player they want to retain, compared to replacing him with a player they don't know in the hopes the new player will be as good or better, and probably for more money. 

 

I do think it's limiting, especially with how rigid Ballard seems to be at times, but I don't think it's arrogance or confirmation bias. Setting aside the QB position, I think the biggest flaw in the strategy over the past few years has been the quality of drafting. 

 

Speaking of arrogance, I think a good exercise for fans is to look back at the free agents we wanted the Colts to sign who actually reached the market, and see just how often those players failed to work out on their new teams. We remember wanting Charles Leno, but how many people criticized the Colts for not signing Alejandro Villanueva? How many people called Ballard cheap for not signing Allen Robinson? Who wanted JC Jackson? And who understand the cap ramifications, and pays attention to them on a year to year basis?

 

We're fans on a message board, so it's fine, but it feels like a distinct lack of self awareness to say that an NFL GM who believes free agency is overrated is "arrogant." I think pretty much everyone agrees that free agency is overrated, until it's the player you really want your team to sign.

[Superman]

47 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

And to be clear, I'm not trying to move the goalposts, I'm trying to clarify what I mean. If Ballard doesn't hit in the draft I want him to be more proactive in bringing in good talent the team can build around instead of just pushing the problem ahead of us a year or two at most.

 

Ebukam is the ONLY guy I see us keeping around for long. I think he's the only one that's signed a contract for more than 2 years.

 

I appreciate the clarification, because I think the topic gets muddy and people wind up talking past each other. I don't disagree with the bolded.

 

I think you get mid tier free agents on two year deals, three at most. And some of those other guys were just a matter of circumstance -- they probably hoped for more than one year out of Rivers, Funchess, etc., even if they only signed for one year. 

 

Quote

 

I guess that depends on how you define top tier free agents. I'd have loved if we went after Huff who I think the Eagles got the bargain of the decade on. Sure, $17m is a lot of money, but for the 2nd most efficient pass rusher last season who's only 26 years old I think it's a steal. I would've signed him for that money 10 times over instead of signing Stewart to his new contract.

 

Ballard has basically not signed any free agents to north of $12.5m that isn't his own I think. Depending on the position that's not top tier money.

 

 

I get it, there are plenty of free agents that it would have been nice to have. And like I said earlier, at the right time, for the right player, it's okay to pay the premium. Spending $13m/year on Stewart vs $17m on Huff (although I'm not sold that Huff is the right player) is not what I was looking for.

 

He did it with Buckner, but that's one guy, four years ago. I'm on the record, I think he's too rigid. But I don't necessarily think right now is the right time for this team. 

[CardiacColts]

It’s getting a little better on this thread. Only had to catch up on 2.5 pages to see that there are no new signings or updates . Carry on…

[Solid84]

29 minutes ago, w87r said:

So stopping the run isn't important?

 

 

 

13 of the top 19 rush yards allowed per game defenses, made the playoffs. Packers were the only playoff team ranked outside top 20(#28). Colts were #24.

 

 

Lions #2

49ers #3

Bucs #5

Texans #6

Dolphins #7

Eagles #10

Browns #11

Rams #12

Ravens #14

Bills #15

Cowboys #16

Chiefs #18

Steelers #19

 

 

https://www.footballdb.com/stats/teamstat.html?group=D&cat=T&sort=rushypg

 

 

I would say stopping the run in "modern football" is a little more important than you are making it out to be.

I don't think it is compared to bringing pressure on the QB and covering, no. I'd even say definitely not.

 

Top 10 teams in total pressures:

1. Ravens - AFCCG
2. 49'ers - Super Bowl
3. Dolphins - Wildcard Round
4. Cowboys - Wildcard Round
5. Browns - Wildcard Round
6. Lions - NFCCG
7. Bills - Divisional Round
8. Chiefs - Super Bowl Champions
9. Eagles - Wildcard Round
10. Jets - Not in the playoffs.

Other Playoff teams:

• 11. Steelers
• 12. Packers
• 14. Texans
• 15. Rams
• 19. Buccaneers

Only playoff team not in the top half in total pressures are the Bucs and the only team in the top 10 not in the playoffs are the Jets.

 

This is by PFF numbers by the way.

[Superman]

28 minutes ago, w87r said:

So stopping the run isn't important?

 

 

 

13 of the top 19 rush yards allowed per game defenses, made the playoffs. Packers were the only playoff team ranked outside top 20(#28). Colts were #24.

 

 

Lions #2

49ers #3

Bucs #5

Texans #6

Dolphins #7

Eagles #10

Browns #11

Rams #12

Ravens #14

Bills #15

Cowboys #16

Chiefs #18

Steelers #19

 

 

https://www.footballdb.com/stats/teamstat.html?group=D&cat=T&sort=rushypg

 

 

I would say stopping the run in "modern football" is a little more important than you are making it out to be.

 

Prioritizing stopping the run over pass rush and pass coverage is problematic. And you can be good against the run without paying a premium for a non pass rush NT.

[Solid84]

6 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I don't think it is compared to bringing pressure on the QB and covering, no. I'd even say definitely not.

 

Top 10 teams in total pressures:

1. Ravens - AFCCG
2. 49'ers - Super Bowl
3. Dolphins - Wildcard Round
4. Cowboys - Wildcard Round
5. Browns - Wildcard Round
6. Lions - NFCCG
7. Bills - Divisional Round
8. Chiefs - Super Bowl Champions
9. Eagles - Wildcard Round
10. Jets - Not in the playoffs.

Other Playoff teams:

• 11. Steelers
• 12. Packers
• 14. Texans
• 15. Rams
• 19. Buccaneers

Only playoff team not in the top half in total pressures are the Bucs and the only team in the top 10 not in the playoffs are the Jets.

 

This is by PFF numbers by the way.

12 of the 14 playoff teams are in the top 14 in total pressures. 13 in the top 15. The Buccaneers are the only outlier really. If that doesn't spell out how important pressures are I don't know what will.

[stitches]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think that's the point. What the Colts have almost always done with upcoming free agents is extend them before they hit the market, which typically puts a cap on the player's contract value. It also allows the team to spread out the cap hits more effectively. Outside of Pittman, the players that the Colts really want to build around do not reach free agency, so there's no opportunity for the rest of the league to overvalue them in the market.

I think pretty much all of the FAs we re-signed hit free agency this year. They might not have gone on the tours around the league, but do you really think their agents weren't gathering information about their market the last few weeks to months at the very least? They all did and they liked what the Colts offered compared to what they were hearing from the league. Kenny Moore even mentioned that it was 50-50 whether he would come back for example.

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think it's about the investment they've already made into the player. I think it's about having a player they want to retain, compared to replacing him with a player they don't know in the hopes the new player will be as good or better, and probably for more money. 

That's another aspect that I am not super happy about - Ballard lacks aggression and is very risk averse. He would rather have a solid player he knows rather than try to get a great one(or at least an upgrade) he doesn't know. We know what that leads to... It leads to securing the status quo. And if the status quo was more than mediocrity, that will be all good but alas, we've been nothing but mediocre for huge majority of Ballard's tenure.

1 hour ago, Superman said:

I do think it's limiting, especially with how rigid Ballard seems to be at times, but I don't think it's arrogance or confirmation bias. Setting aside the QB position, I think the biggest flaw in the strategy over the past few years has been the quality of drafting. 

I think it's both. I think If you know you will have limited role in FA, you need to nail the draft... Year after year. And that is kind of a fool's errand. Teams are not great in that draft thing and over the long term they all converge towards the same level.

1 hour ago, Superman said:

Speaking of arrogance, I think a good exercise for fans is to look back at the free agents we wanted the Colts to sign who actually reached the market, and see just how often those players failed to work out on their new teams. We remember wanting Charles Leno, but how many people criticized the Colts for not signing Alejandro Villanueva? How many people called Ballard cheap for not signing Allen Robinson? Who wanted JC Jackson? And who understand the cap ramifications, and pays attention to them on a year to year basis?

That's a good exercise for humbling our egos, but at the same time I want to emphasize that we are fans on an internet board. That's pretty much what we do all the time - who should we get in FA, who should we draft, who should we cut and who and when should we trade, who should play RG or the second outside corner, etc. it's the nature of the boards. But again..

 We are fans. Those people are pros. Those people are being paid MILLIONS to make those decisions and they have the resources of a multi-billion corporation behind them with the wide ranging support for their decision-making process. I have no illusions that I know more football than Ballard or that I have anywhere close to the resources he has. And teams miss all the time on those types of decisions. It's only natural for us as just fans to not be great at this either. But that doesn't mean I will agree with Ballard's ways and philosophies. In fact, even without any of his knowledge or resources and without the fear or shame of being called arrogant I will absolutely stand behind my opinion that Ballard's view of the game and what wins at the highest level in today's league is outdated.

 

1 hour ago, Superman said:

We're fans on a message board, so it's fine, but it feels like a distinct lack of self awareness to say that an NFL GM who believes free agency is overrated is "arrogant." I think pretty much everyone agrees that free agency is overrated, until it's the player you really want your team to sign.

I am not sure what exactly is meant by overrated in the context. Every time a player comes to a point where they need to reset the market to their talents, it's the team that's highest on their skills and projection that is going to get them. So... highest expectation(salary) usually wins the bidding war and it's only natural for that to be a bit of an overpay in most cases since they are paying for the top percentile projection. But that comes with the territory. I wouldn't call it overrated... Probably there's a better word for it, but doesn't come to my mind right now.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with Ballard's refusal to participate in bidding wars.. And this almost by default means we will be out on the biggest FAs. But I do think he can have a more aggressive approach in replacing mediocre pieces on our own team with players that have shown promise on other teams but don't command huge salaries or vets who have shown high level of play in the past... It's kind of interesting to me, because when Ballard has done it before, he has actually had good success in the mid-tier FA market - Houston, Ebron, Autry, Sheard, Gilmore, Rhodes... 

 

So yah... I would call free agency underutilized part of the roster building process for Ballard,.even though there is a risk of overpaying.

[w87r]

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Prioritizing stopping the run over pass rush and pass coverage is problematic. And you can be good against the run without paying a premium for a non pass rush NT.

I guess to each their own, I for one am happy Grover is back, that was about to be a big hole and it was evident how much he was missed last year during suspension. Little more than I wanted but it is what it is. He did grade out 22/130 of all DTs last year on PFF.(I know you don't like PFF)

Probably would've had to use a 2nd on Sweat if he made it there and we didn't bring Grover back.

 

$6-$7m is the new going rate for solid backups. So Lewis and Davis contracts aren't anything to worry about.

 

 

Happy Davis is here as well. Watching Eric Johnson and Taven Bryan getting beat on so many reps last year wasn't pleasant.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I don't think it is compared to bringing pressure on the QB and covering, no. I'd even say definitely not.

 

Top 10 teams in total pressures:

1. Ravens - AFCCG
2. 49'ers - Super Bowl
3. Dolphins - Wildcard Round
4. Cowboys - Wildcard Round
5. Browns - Wildcard Round
6. Lions - NFCCG
7. Bills - Divisional Round
8. Chiefs - Super Bowl Champions
9. Eagles - Wildcard Round
10. Jets - Not in the playoffs.

Other Playoff teams:

• 11. Steelers
• 12. Packers
• 14. Texans
• 15. Rams
• 19. Buccaneers

Only playoff team not in the top half in total pressures are the Bucs and the only team in the top 10 not in the playoffs are the Jets.

 

This is by PFF numbers by the way.

Big difference, I didn't say pressures aren't important.

 

However you said trying to stop the run is malpractice...

 

 

They are both important. Being able to stop a team running on 3rd and short is just as important as getting a pressure on 3rd and 7.

 

 

 

Anyway, offseason is far from over. Probably work my way out of this thread after this post.

 

Colts have (16*) spots left to fill. (7) draft picks included.

 

We will be adding more talent at spots of current weaknesses.

 

I imagine they are devoted out something like this:

RB - 1-2

WR - 1-2

TE - 1

OL - 2

DE - 1

DT - 1

LB - 1

CB - 2

S - 2

 

 

That still leaves 2-4 spots to add somewhere.

 

 

* if Dabo still has free roster spot.

[Solid84]

18 minutes ago, w87r said:

Big difference, I didn't say pressures aren't important.

 

However you said trying to stop the run is malpractice...

 

 

They are both important. Being able to stop a team running on 3rd and short is just as important as getting a pressure on 3rd and 7.

 

 

 

Anyway, offseason is far from over. Probably work my way out of this thread after this post.

 

Colts have (16*) spots left to fill. (7) draft picks included.

 

We will be adding more talent at spots of current weaknesses.

 

I imagine they are devoted out something like this:

RB - 1-2

WR - 1-2

TE - 1

OL - 2

DE - 1

DT - 1

LB - 1

CB - 2

S - 2

 

 

That still leaves 2-4 spots to add somewhere.

 

 

* if Dabo still has free roster spot.

I think prioritizing keeping players that only run stop instead of finding guys who can do both or with a possible slight down-grade in run stopping is malpractice, yes. I think it’s a clear misallocation of ressources. 

I’m not saying: Just let them run all over us.
But, if we have:

• Guy A great run stopper
• Average pass rusher.  
• 15-20 pressures in a season. 

But we can sign:

• Guy B great pass rusher. 
• Average run stopper. 
• 35-45 pressures in a season. 

I’d take guy B 10/10 times and I’d gladly pay more. 
 

I don’t get signing Stewart AND Davis. Sign Davis and use the rest to go get a pass rusher - just an example. 
 

I don’t get extending Franklin. Let him know he needs to up his coverage ability if he wants a big extension, then find a guy in the draft to put him on notice - just an example. 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, stitches said:

I think pretty much all of the FAs we re-signed hit free agency this year. They might not have gone on the tours around the league, but do you really think their agents weren't gathering information about their market the last few weeks to months at the very least? They all did and they liked what the Colts offered compared to what they were hearing from the league. Kenny Moore even mentioned that it was 50-50 whether he would come back for example.

 

Yeah, the agents had an idea what the market would bear for these guys. But I was talking about players the Colts would like to build around, not 30 year olds on their third contract. Moore, Stewart, did not make it to market before their second deal. 

 

Quote

 

That's a good exercise for humbling our egos, but at the same time I want to emphasize that we are fans on an internet board. That's pretty much what we do all the time - who should we get in FA, who should we draft, who should we cut and who and when should we trade, who should play RG or the second outside corner, etc. it's the nature of the boards. But again..

 We are fans. Those people are pros. Those people are being paid MILLIONS to make those decisions and they have the resources of a multi-billion corporation behind them with the wide ranging support for their decision-making process. I have no illusions that I know more football than Ballard or that I have anywhere close to the resources he has. But that doesn't mean I will agree with his ways and philosophies. In fact, even without any of his knowledge or resources and without the fear or shame of being called arrogant I will absolutely stand behind my opinion that Ballard's view of the game and what wins at the highest level in today's league is outdated.

 

 

I acknowledged this, but there can still be some self awareness. 

 

How about just look back historically at how often free agents fail to live up to their new contracts. Or how often they get released after two years. This is not me saying 'Ballard is smarter than us.' I'm saying we collectively should learn from our own past mistaken ideas about how free agency works. If you were banging the drum for JC Jackson, it would seem like you'd recognize that free agency can be treacherous. But I think that level of self awareness is rare.

 

I brought it up because we're talking about a GM being hesitant to bring in a new guy at a high dollar amount, vs keeping the guy he knows at a high dollar amount. I think it helps explain why Ballard is very judicious in free agency, and I think most GMs operate the same way.

 

In 2023, only 27 free agents signed for $10m/year or more, and 22 of them went to a new team. The top two were QBs. The strong majority of what's going on in free agency is the mid tier stuff that Ballard has used, although I agree he could use it more.

 

Quote

 

I don't necessarily disagree with Ballard's refusal to participate in bidding wars.. And this almost by default means we will be out on the biggest FAs. But I do think he can have a more aggressive approach in replacing mediocre pieces on our own team with players that have shown promise on other teams but don't command huge salaries or vets who have shown high level of play in the past... It's kind of interesting to me, because when Ballard has done it before, he has actually had good success in the mid-tier FA market - Houston, Ebron, Autry, Sheard, Gilmore, Rhodes... 

 

So yah... I would call free agency underutilized part of the roster building process for Ballard,.even though there is a risk of overpaying.

 

 

I agree with all of this. But maybe Ballard's limited use of free agency is the reason his batting average is pretty good. Still, that probably means he's leaving some meat on the bone. 

[Superman]

25 minutes ago, w87r said:

I guess to each their own, I for one am happy Grover is back, that was about to be a big hole and it was evident how much he was missed last year during suspension. Little more than I wanted but it is what it is. He did grade out 22/130 of all DTs last year on PFF.(I know you don't like PFF)

Probably would've had to use a 2nd on Sweat if he made it there and we didn't bring Grover back.

 

$6-$7m is the new going rate for solid backups. So Lewis and Davis contracts aren't anything to worry about.

 

 

Happy Davis is here as well. Watching Eric Johnson and Taven Bryan getting beat on so many reps last year wasn't pleasant.

 

 

Yeah, this is my biggest disappointment with what Ballard did this offseason, so we obviously disagree. 

 

But just philosophically, I think the earlier point being made was that paying a premium for run stopping DTs is not the recipe for building a good defense. And I think that's demonstrably true.

 

To the bolded, ehh... Not gonna split hairs, but I'm not thrilled about that reasoning. More importantly though, it's the $13m for two backups, PLUS the $13m for Stewart, PLUS $10m for Franklin... $36m/year on these guys, and the kicker is that we're probably still not going to be good at rushing the passer or covering the middle of the field.

 

Oh, and we brought back Taven Bryan as well, probably just because you keep complaining about him, LOL. 

[w87r]

3 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

 

I don’t get extending Franklin

You know I'm with you here 

 

Although I hated waking up to that news, I was still relieved it wasn't for more.

 

 

TBH, a $15m+ contract for Zaire would of probably pushed me off the edge with Ballard.

 

I have no issues with Ballard, would I like him to be a little more aggressive, sure.

 

At the same time I can appreciate our team not having to unload guys year after gear because we are in cap hell.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I’m not saying: Just let them run all over us.
But, if we have:

• Guy A great run stopper
• Average pass rusher.  
• 15-20 pressures in a season. 

But we can sign:

• Guy B great pass rusher. 
• Average run stopper. 
• 35-45 pressures in a season. 

I’d take guy B 10/10 times and I’d gladly pay more.

Who is said player, and what is there cost?

 

9 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

 

I don’t get signing Stewart AND Davis. Sign Davis and use the rest to go get a pass rusher - just an example

We had (3) DTs on roster entering FA.

 

Backup DT has been a major week spot, I think Davis is going to supply good backup at both spots. I think he will have a good year in his new role, instead of just eating double teams every play.

[GoColts8818]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

Oh, and we brought back Taven Bryan as well, probably just because you keep complaining about him, LOL. 

me every time I remember they brought back Taven Bryan…

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

me every time I remember they brought back Taven Bryan…

 

Be careful before they figure out a way to clone him and sign him again...

[GoColts8818]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Be careful before they figure out a way to clone him and sign him again...

Wait that’s not what Eric Johnson is?  Darn could have fooled me.

[w87r]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

Oh, and we brought back Taven Bryan as well, probably just because you keep complaining about him, LOL. 

I complained about him after we re-signed him, Lol.

 

I don't mind Bryan as a 5th-6th DT competing for roster spot(last year he was probably #3, Davis's spot now). Doubt it's much more than minimum. Gave him $3m last year iirc, and he underperformed that contract.

 

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

Not gonna split hairs, but I'm not thrilled about that reasoning. More importantly though, it's the $13m for two backups, PLUS the $13m for Stewart, PLUS $10m for Franklin... $36m/year on these guys, and the kicker is that we're probably still not going to be good at rushing the passer or covering the middle of the field.

I know they are backups, but backups on the DL are not like backups everywhere else on the roster.

 

Those guys get tired and need rotated. 

 

Where as a backup OL, might not play all year.

 

Lewis graded out as DE#2 starter(40/112) last season(I know, PFF, I know)

 

And if I'm not mistaken, I'm pretty sure I've saw somewhere on the forum here that Lewis let out DEs in pressures last season.

 

As far as Davis, again, I'll go back to what I said to solid above, starting DT and backup DT were our biggest holes entering FA.

[Solid84]

9 minutes ago, w87r said:

You know I'm with you here 

 

Although I hated waking up to that news, I was still relieved it wasn't for more.

 

 

TBH, a $15m+ contract for Zaire would of probably pushed me off the edge with Ballard.

 

I have no issues with Ballard, would I like him to be a little more aggressive, sure.

 

At the same time I can appreciate our team not having to unload guys year after gear because we are in cap hell.

 

 

Who is said player, and what is there cost?

 

We had (3) DTs on roster entering FA.

 

Backup DT has been a major week spot, I think Davis is going to supply good backup at both spots. I think he will have a good year in his new role, instead of just eating double teams every play.

Guys A/B was just an example. 
 

I know we needed help at DT, but instead of spending $20m on stopping the run, I’d prefer spending the 7 on Davis and putting the 13 towards finding a DT starter who could pass rush as well. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, w87r said:

I know they are backups, but backups on the DL are not like backups everywhere else on the roster.

 

Those guys get tired and need rotated. 

 

Where as a backup OL, might not play all year.

 

Lewis graded out as DE#2 starter(40/112) last season(I know, PFF, I know)

 

And if I'm not mistaken, I'm pretty sure I've saw somewhere on the forum here that Lewis let out DEs in pressures last season.

 

As far as Davis, again, I'll go back to what I said to solid above, starting DT and backup DT were our biggest holes entering FA.

 

Understood. In a vacuum, any of those players being signed doesn't necessarily bother me. It's the totality of resources allocated to those players, and our biggest defensive weaknesses likely were not improved.

[Solid84]

9 minutes ago, w87r said:

I complained about him after we re-signed him, Lol.

 

I don't mind Bryan as a 5th-6th DT competing for roster spot(last year he was probably #3, Davis's spot now). Doubt it's much more than minimum. Gave him $3m last year iirc, and he underperformed that contract.

 

I know they are backups, but backups on the DL are not like backups everywhere else on the roster.

 

Those guys get tired and need rotated. 

 

Where as a backup OL, might not play all year.

 

Lewis graded out as DE#2 starter(40/112) last season(I know, PFF, I know)

 

And if I'm not mistaken, I'm pretty sure I've saw somewhere on the forum here that Lewis let out DEs in pressures last season.

 

As far as Davis, again, I'll go back to what I said to solid above, starting DT and backup DT were our biggest holes entering FA.

I wish we’d try starting Lewis instead of Paye. 
 

Lewis was our #2 DE in pressures behind Ebukam (44 and 48 - PFF numbers), but Lewis did it in far fewer pass rush snaps (259 to Ebukam’s 450). 
 

Paye is far behind with 28 pressures on 410 pass rush snaps. 

[w87r]

10 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Guys A/B was just an example. 
 

I know we needed help at DT, but instead of spending $20m on stopping the run, I’d prefer spending the 7 on Davis and putting the 13 towards finding a DT starter who could pass rush as well. 

I figured they were just examples.

 

That's the problem, you can say you want one player over another(examples), but if there is no player out there that meets the example, not very easy to make that happen.

 

 

Now that I read it back, you did say "$13m towards", so now I'm assuming you meant spend more. Thought you meant, only spend $13m on unsaid DT.