Colts offseason discussion / Ballard Grievances (merge)

[Solid84]

1 minute ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 If you sign a free agent he needs a season to adapt so you are not getting his best. 

 Then you throw in the history of FA's most typically only lasting 2 years after they sign, perhaps then you can comprehend the problem.

 Ballard and other wise GM's that have rosters with as many holes as we have are most interested in young 25ish free agents that have a higher probability of being part of a SB run like in our case, and it's a wild * dream today, in 2-3 years. 

 JMO that so many here really didn't know what they were seeing in the playoffs from the final 8 teams. We are a very well coached team with below .500 talent. 

I don't expect (or want really) Ballard to make the big splashes in FA. I do want him to make the medium splashes.

 

Ballard basically only uses FA for 1-2 year JAGs he hopes can fill the holes he can't fill in the draft. It's not working for us or anyone else. You NEED to plugs holes with reliable talent. Unless you never miss in the draft, solely using that to add talent isn't enough. No succesful team does what Ballard does.

 

Look at what the Chiefs are doing, the Ravens, the Bengals. They add talent in FA to supplement their draft hits. Sure, they are further along than us, but when Ballard has a tendency to draft raw, traitsy guys who need 2-4 years of development we're never going to get there, because if one is a miss we're once again behind those 2-4 years a new guy will take to develop. He needs to use FA to add talent when he misses.

[chad72]

Just now, Solid84 said:

I don't expect (or want really) Ballard to make the big splashes in FA. I do want him to make the medium splashes.

 

Ballard basically only uses FA for 1-2 year JAGs he hopes can fill the holes he can't fill in the draft. It's not working for us or anyone else. You NEED to plugs holes with reliable talent. Unless you never miss in the draft, solely using that to add talent isn't enough. No succesful team does what Ballard does.

 

Look at what the Chiefs are doing, the Ravens, the Bengals. They add talent in FA to supplement their draft hits. Sure, they are further along than us, but when Ballard has a tendency to draft raw, traitsy guys who need 2-4 years of development we're never going to get there, because if one is a miss we're once again behind those 2-4 years a new guy will take to develop. He needs to use FA to add talent when he misses.

 

It is all in with AR and Ballard probably sticks around 3 years tops, with his approach and everyone has an expiration date.

[RollerColt]

Just now, chad72 said:

 

But they are not all in the Colts' division, that is what I am getting at.

 

We have the misfortune of having all the other 3 divisional teams in a state with no income tax. I don't think any other NFL team has that

 

@csmopar that is what I was referring to.

Yeah I digged a bit and I think we're the only team stuck in a division like that. 

 

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I don't expect (or want really) Ballard to make the big splashes in FA. I do want him to make the medium splashes.

 

Ballard basically only uses FA for 1-2 year JAGs he hopes can fill the holes he can't fill in the draft. It's not working for us or anyone else. You NEED to plugs holes with reliable talent. Unless you never miss in the draft, solely using that to add talent isn't enough. No succesful team does what Ballard does.

 

Look at what the Chiefs are doing, the Ravens, the Bengals. They add talent in FA to supplement their draft hits. Sure, they are further along than us, but when Ballard has a tendency to draft raw, traitsy guys who need 2-4 years of development we're never going to get there, because if one is a miss we're once again behind those 2-4 years a new guy will take to develop. He needs to use FA to add talent when he misses.

Yep. I basically say that Ballard GMs like someone who plays Madden. He does these depth signings in FA while building through the draft and drafting raw traits guys with high ceiling development that take a while to hit their ceiling, but it only works if you have a really high hit rate in the draft. I don't think it's possible to hit enough in real life (outside of Madden) for that strategy to work. It's been 8 years and we still have weaknesses on the team. You have to build through FA as well to fix the weaknesses that the draft can't fix, and like you said, Ballard has to assume that Richardson is the guy right now or his contract will be up before we contend.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

As soon as this Sneed thing is wrapped up I am sure the CB market will start to move.

[Colt Overseas]

28 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

Chinn is gone. Simmons, Diggs, and Blackmon are the best available safeties. 

 

I think Diggs makes the most sense tbh. 

[Patrick Miller]

10 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

As soon as this Sneed thing is wrapped up I am sure the CB market will start to move.

I bet the chiefs hammer out a deal with him to stay.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Patrick Miller said:

I bet the chiefs hammer out a deal with him to stay.

Yep. Mahomes restructured his contract. Saved 21.6 million I believe. That should be enough for Sneed IMO

[Jackie Daytona]

2 hours ago, stitches said:

Can you give a source for all those? Because the stats I'm seeing show we were one of the teams with lowest pressure rates in the league. I posted one of the graphs above... 

https://www.si.com/nfl/colts/news/deforest-buckner-colts-defensive-line-impressive-stats

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Jackie Daytona said:

https://www.si.com/nfl/colts/news/deforest-buckner-colts-defensive-line-impressive-stats

That's the sacks thing we were discussing earlier, not pressure rates. 

[joecolts]

A backup QB to replace Minshew that makes great sense is Ryan Tannehill.  Seasoned Vet to mentor AR, could step in a win a few games if needed, knows this division and a big chip on his shoulder for the Titans. 

[Iron Colt]

5 minutes ago, Yoshinator said:

Yep. Mahomes restructured his contract. Saved 21.6 million I believe. That should be enough for Sneed IMO

They'll need 10 of that for draft picks.

[stitches]

Not sure if I saw this posted here earlier:

I really don't get Ballard... 

 

[Jackie Daytona]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

That's the sacks thing we were discussing earlier, not pressure rates. 

So we were the highest we've ever been for sacks, but extremely low pressuring the QB?  That seems odd ... not doubting, just....odd.  which would be on brand for the Colts.

[RollerColt]

Just now, Jackie Daytona said:

So we were the highest we've ever been for sacks, but extremely low pressuring the QB?  That seems odd ... not doubting, just....odd.  which would be on brand for the Colts.

Pretty much... It was very strange because we'd get a huge sack for a loss, but then give up a major play essentially negating that sack. We had way too many 3rd and long conversions last year. 

[Yoshinator]

Just now, Jackie Daytona said:

So we were the highest we've ever been for sacks, but extremely low pressuring the QB?  That seems odd ... not doubting, just....odd.  which would be on brand for the Colts.

It's unsustainable. Really low probability that it would happen when you don't blitz much, and Gus isn't a heavy blitzer, so the number of sacks is unlikely to happen again. Since we aren't blitzing much, we aren't likely to get pressures, and pressures generally turn into sacks a lot of the time.

 

If we blitz more, we can get the sacks at a sustainable rate, but I don't trust Gus to do that. 

[richard pallo]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

Not sure if I saw this posted here earlier:

I really don't get Ballard... 

 

Seems like he’s thinking Moss 2.0.

[Yoshinator]

Just now, richard pallo said:

Seems like he’s thinking Moss 2.0.

Yep. We missed out on Moss. I don't blame Ballard here. Dillon is plan B, and we need a backup RB.

[PeterBowman]

Just now, richard pallo said:

Seems like he’s thinking Moss 2.0.

Still need a solid back up rb

[Superman]

8 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Very fair question…. 

Because it’s outside of what Ballard normally does.  It’s an un-Ballard-like decision, especially for Day 2 of free agency.  
 

2/14 tells me Ballard thinks he’s really beefing up the DL.  That the signing is likely heavily influenced by the new highly regarded DL coach.  I have to believe Ballard asked him to look at the tape for an evaluation.  And that the new coach said I’d love to work with him.  I mean, Davis had a very good rookie year, then 3 straight very poor years according to PFF.  That is so unlike Ballard.  Even when Ballard signed Ebukum last year, no one had ever heard of him, but at least he had very good PFF grades.   We took comfort in that.  This is the opposite.  It tells me Ballard asked the new DL coach to look at his film for an up or down vote.  Do you like him?  Can you work with him?  And the DL coach gave a thumbs up.  I have to believe the new coach played THE determining role in whether we’d spend 2/14 on what, at the surface,  looks like a backup.   But maybe there’s more there than meets the eye?   Has Ballard ever spent 2/14 on a backup?   At any position?   Not to my memory.  
 

Put another way, if the Colts had NOT acquired this new highly thought of DL coach I think I’d be very, VERY nervous.  Maybe even seriously worried.  But that hire of the position coach is easily my favorite Colts move.  Perhaps my favorite move in a number of years.  He was wanted by other NFL teams and colleges as well.  He could go anywhere and he picked the Colts.   So I see his finger prints all over this decision. 
 

On a more personal note:  I want to apologize if my posts to you were a bit too blunt and direct.   You seemed somewhat off your game and it caught me off guard.  So I wanted to elevate the conversation but later worried I might’ve gone too far.  Sorry if I did. 

 

Thanks for answering. And to be clear, your posts have not bothered me at all. I appreciate a robust discussion.

 

Something I find ironic is being encouraged by Ballard signing a FA who is rated poorly by PFF. Especially when PFF's grades and charting indicate that Davis is not a serious pass rush threat.

 

As for the link to the new DL coach, I guess we'll see. The guy comes highly regarded, I hope he helps get the best out of the players we have, and in general I like the outside hire at a crucial position. But everyone seems awfully deferential to the approach of a guy who has never coached in the NFL. If Ballard is taking cues from Partridge as it relates to team building and resource allocation, it raises serious questions for me. Especially when this decision, IMO, speaks to a continued resistance by the Colts to upgrade the roster in the areas that I think are important for winning in the modern NFL.

 

And that's the big thing for me, and why maybe you sense a different tone in my posting. For the record, I've stated in the past that I think it's time for Ballard and Co. to get this thing going, and now that we have the coach and the QB (presumably), the rest of the roster should be tuned up. It's appropriate for the discussion around Ballard -- his methods, and the results -- to change at this point.

 

Specifically in this case, I think we're deficient in pass defense and pass rush, and that we should be committing resources to improve those areas. Instead, we committed resources to players that are themselves deficient in those areas -- Franklin isn't good in coverage, Grover isn't a difference making pass rusher, and Davis is less of a pass rusher than Grover. And that limits the resources we can use on players who might help improve the pass rush and pass coverage. At least Tyquan Lewis is a productive pass rusher, but he's not exactly going to be the foundation of a great pass rush.

 

So it's not about the individual decisions. It's about the overall direction of the roster. I'm happy to be proven wrong, because what I ultimately want is for the Colts to be good and to contend for championships. But I think decisions this offseason will limit our ability to improve in these critical areas. Keeping Gus Bradley, and then paying three defenders who don't help improve our pass defense, these decisions are somewhat discouraging to me. I think they could combine to put a limit on our defensive potential.

 

And if the new DL coach is influencing the roster building to the degree that we're spending $96m on the defensive front in a way that probably doesn't improve the pass defense or the pass rush, then it dampens my enthusiasm for him also. More likely, Ballard is making these moves because -- as he's always said -- he believes building the trenches is as important as anything else when it comes to team building. Charlie Partridge doesn't need to nudge him in this direction, IMO; this is Ballard's own DNA.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Jackie Daytona said:

So we were the highest we've ever been for sacks, but extremely low pressuring the QB?  That seems odd ... not doubting, just....odd.  which would be on brand for the Colts.

Yep. Sacks have a luck/happenstance component. Pressures are much more a process stat. Are you good at beating the OL to the QB? In most of the cases you won't sack him, but most pressures will severely impact the QB's ability to execute the offense as it is designed. Of course there is some additional value to actually finishing the play with a sack, but in tons of cases it's not just on the defender beating the OL for it to result in a sack. You need other things to go right for you - the QB to not throw the ball away earlier, or make a quick hit to outlet receiver... or for the QB to not get away from the pressure(even if the defender did a great job beating the OL)... or sometimes a QB will run into pressure and a sack without the defender actually winning against the OL. 

[csmopar]

41 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

But they are not all in the Colts' division, that is what I am getting at.

 

We have the misfortune of having all the other 3 divisional teams in a state with no income tax. I don't think any other NFL team has that

 

@csmopar that is what I was referring to.

Yep I knew what you meant. I was just thinking off top of my head, that I didn’t think there were any other divisions with 3 income tax free states.  Oh and without going political, look up what Indiana wants to pass for pro athletic salaries… it gonna get worse

[Indyfan4life]

 

[csmopar]

6 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yep. Sacks have a luck/happenstance component. Pressures are much more a process stat. Are you good at beating the OL to the QB? In most of the cases you won't sack him, but most pressures will severely impact the QB's ability to execute the offense as it is designed. Of course there is some additional value to actually finishing the play with a sack, but in tons of cases it's not just on the defender beating the OL for it to result in a sack. You need other things to go right for you - the QB to not throw the ball away earlier, or make a quick hit to outlet receiver... or for the QB to not get away from the pressure(even if the defender did a great job beating the OL)... or sometimes a QB will run into pressure and a sack without the defender actually winning against the OL. 

But my question is this: do sacks also count as pressures?

 

so let’s say you have 20 pressures and 10 sacks. Does that mean you have 10 times that you didn’t get the sack and 10 times that you did! Or does it mean you actually got pressure 30 times but only got 10 sacks, but the other 20 were “pressures” because you broke into the pocket?

1 minute ago, Indyfan4life said:

 

Bidding war… we rarely win those

[tweezy32]

2 minutes ago, Indyfan4life said:

 

 Who is this dude Lol all i ever seen is reports of stating the obvious. He says the same thing as others have said and doesn't actually say anything different than others. 

[csmopar]

22 minutes ago, Iron Colt said:

They'll need 10 of that for draft picks.

More like 5-6

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yep. Sacks have a luck/happenstance component. Pressures are much more a process stat. Are you good at beating the OL to the QB? In most of the cases you won't sack him, but most pressures will severely impact the QB's ability to execute the offense as it is designed. Of course there is some additional value to actually finishing the play with a sack, but in tons of cases it's not just on the defender beating the OL for it to result in a sack. You need other things to go right for you - the QB to not throw the ball away earlier, or make a quick hit to outlet receiver... or for the QB to not get away from the pressure(even if the defender did a great job beating the OL)... or sometimes a QB will run into pressure and a sack without the defender actually winning against the OL. 

 

Just look at how many of our sacks last year came against bad QBs with bad OLs. Sacks are circumstantial to a large degree. 

 

And generally speaking, a defense's sack rate rises with some kind of correlation to the pressure rate. For the 2023 Colts, our sack rate went up, while our pressure rate went down. Unless you can point to some reason why the Colts are able to convert fewer pressures into more sacks, the most reasonable conclusion is that our sack output was basically the product of favorable circumstances.

[Solid84]

9 minutes ago, csmopar said:

But my question is this: do sacks also count as pressures?

 

so let’s say you have 20 pressures and 10 sacks. Does that mean you have 10 times that you didn’t get the sack and 10 times that you did! Or does it mean you actually got pressure 30 times but only got 10 sacks, but the other 20 were “pressures” because you broke into the pocket?

Pressures are a total of sacks and hits (and hurries if you follow PFF).

 

PFF numbers: The Colts had 281 total pressures in 2023 - 60 sacks (they count half sacks as 1 to each player), 53 hits and 168 hurries.

 

This ranked 25th among all teams with the Ravens (397), The 49'ers (389) and the Dolphins (361) being top 3. 

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, csmopar said:

But my question is this: do sacks also count as pressures?

I think they do(not 100% sure).

2 minutes ago, csmopar said:

so let’s say you have 20 pressures and 10 sacks. Does that mean you have 10 times that you didn’t get the sack and 10 times that you did! Or does it mean you actually got pressure 30 times but only got 10 sacks, but the other 20 were “pressures” because you broke into the pocket?

Bidding war… we rarely win those

Again... I think it would mean you got 10 pressures with sacks + 10 pressures without sacks. But those are usually not the right proportions. (I know you are using it just as an example, but I wanted to point out what the real proportions usually are) Usually the pressure to sack ratio is about 15-20%) Meaning for every 10 sacks you would be getting about 50-65 pressures(a ton more plays you are impacting)... again my numbers are probably not 100% correct, but this is the ballpark figure. 

[tweezy32]

11 minutes ago, tweezy32 said:

 Who is this dude Lol all i ever seen is reports of stating the obvious. He says the same thing as others have said and doesn't actually say anything different than others. 

 

9 minutes ago, Indyfan4life said:

Was this English?

 

[csmopar]

5 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Pressures are a total of sacks and hits (and hurries if you follow PFF).

 

PFF numbers: The Colts had 281 total pressures in 2023 - 60 sacks (they count half sacks as 1 to each player), 53 hits and 168 hurries.

 

This ranked 25th among all teams with the Ravens (397), The 49'ers (389) and the Dolphins (361) being top 3. 

Okay thank you. That makes a lot more sense now. Much appreciated 

[AKB]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Thanks for answering. And to be clear, your posts have not bothered me at all. I appreciate a robust discussion.

 

Something I find ironic is being encouraged by Ballard signing a FA who is rated poorly by PFF. Especially when PFF's grades and charting indicate that Davis is not a serious pass rush threat.

 

As for the link to the new DL coach, I guess we'll see. The guy comes highly regarded, I hope he helps get the best out of the players we have, and in general I like the outside hire at a crucial position. But everyone seems awfully deferential to the approach of a guy who has never coached in the NFL. If Ballard is taking cues from Partridge as it relates to team building and resource allocation, it raises serious questions for me. Especially when this decision, IMO, speaks to a continued resistance by the Colts to upgrade the roster in the areas that I think are important for winning in the modern NFL.

 

And that's the big thing for me, and why maybe you sense a different tone in my posting. For the record, I've stated in the past that I think it's time for Ballard and Co. to get this thing going, and now that we have the coach and the QB (presumably), the rest of the roster should be tuned up. It's appropriate for the discussion around Ballard -- his methods, and the results -- to change at this point.

 

Specifically in this case, I think we're deficient in pass defense and pass rush, and that we should be committing resources to improve those areas. Instead, we committed resources to players that are themselves deficient in those areas -- Franklin isn't good in coverage, Grover isn't a difference making pass rusher, and Davis is less of a pass rusher than Grover. And that limits the resources we can use on players who might help improve the pass rush and pass coverage. At least Tyquan Lewis is a productive pass rusher, but he's not exactly going to be the foundation of a great pass rush.

 

So it's not about the individual decisions. It's about the overall direction of the roster. I'm happy to be proven wrong, because what I ultimately want is for the Colts to be good and to contend for championships. But I think decisions this offseason will limit our ability to improve in these critical areas. Keeping Gus Bradley, and then paying three defenders who don't help improve our pass defense, these decisions are somewhat discouraging to me. I think they could combine to put a limit on our defensive potential.

 

And if the new DL coach is influencing the roster building to the degree that we're spending $96m on the defensive front in a way that probably doesn't improve the pass defense or the pass rush, then it dampens my enthusiasm for him also. More likely, Ballard is making these moves because -- as he's always said -- he believes building the trenches is as important as anything else when it comes to team building. Charlie Partridge doesn't need to nudge him in this direction, IMO; this is Ballard's own DNA.

Good post, and I agree with most of it. 

 

But in short, you're basically saying Ballard is doing Ballard things. He has built and maintained the roster with this strategy since he took over and drafted Hooker. 

 

my argument is it's only gotten us .500 and we haven't won the division in a decade. so yeah, i guess with less words im saying the same thing, im ready for him to make a push too. do something different. 

[csmopar]

7 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Pressures are a total of sacks and hits (and hurries if you follow PFF).

 

PFF numbers: The Colts had 281 total pressures in 2023 - 60 sacks (they count half sacks as 1 to each player), 53 hits and 168 hurries.

 

This ranked 25th among all teams with the Ravens (397), The 49'ers (389) and the Dolphins (361) being top 3. 

So follow up question, the pressure percentage then would be the total snaps against an Offense vs the total pressures right? So say we played 2810 total snaps, with 281 total pressures, our rate would be 10 percent.(overly simplified for example purposes only)

 

but what if 1400 of those 2800 snaps were running plays where there was no chance to pressure? Do they separate out running plays nonsense passing plays in the pressure percentage?

[Colt Overseas]

14 minutes ago, tweezy32 said:

 Who is this dude Lol all i ever seen is reports of stating the obvious. He says the same thing as others have said and doesn't actually say anything different than others. 

 

I'm not sure does anybody outside the organisation have sources. Nobody had the Raekwon Davis deal. It's easy saying they are going to re-sign their own and sign top-tier FAs. If a online account is releasing information beforehand on lesser known/mid tier FA deals, then those might be worth reading in to.

[stitches]

11 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Pressures are a total of sacks and hits (and hurries if you follow PFF).

 

PFF numbers: The Colts had 281 total pressures in 2023 - 60 sacks (they count half sacks as 1 to each player), 53 hits and 168 hurries.

 

This ranked 25th among all teams with the Ravens (397), The 49'ers (389) and the Dolphins (361) being top 3. 

Yep that tracks... that's very high pressure to sack ratio... over 21%. If I had to guess most other teams are much lower than us - more in the 15% range...

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Solid84 said:

You have to bet on him being the guy. If you wait 2-3 years to be sure you've basically wasted his rookie contract. You build to get better now and if AR doesn't work out, you draft a new guy and try again - that's where we are, no more vet place-holders.

What are the odds on that bet as of March 2024?  AR taking us to the SB soon, after starting 17 games in his college and pro career?  I doubt that Ballard is looking at it that way. 

 

I don't think its reasonable to say that teams only win a lot when their good QB is on his rookie contract.  I think the next contract is where the dynasty takes hold.  Being consistently in contention during each day of the season and offseason (to the extent any team is in contention during the offseason) is what makes a team interesting.  

 

You first have to be in contention year after year.  Then splurge when the time is right.  The Colts haven't even entered that contention phase yet.  JMO.

[AKB]

I'm a little surprised on the pushback for the backup DT signing. 

 

are we upset about the player/deal or are we more upset about his overall strategy.

 

roster wise, we desperately needed a DT that could play relief pitcher to Buck and Grove. that was clear to see. so i'm leaning towards people being more upset with the overall same strat vs. the signing of the player in particular. 

[Solid84]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

So follow up question, the pressure percentage then would be the total snaps against an Offense vs the total pressures right? So say we played 2810 total snaps, with 281 total pressures, our rate would be 10 percent.(overly simplified for example purposes only)

 

but what if 1400 of those 2800 snaps were running plays where there was no chance to pressure? Do they separate out running plays nonsense passing plays in the pressure percentage?

I think you would take the actual pass snaps where the defense rushed the passer and the total pressures.

 

So say the defense faced 1400 pass snaps the our pressure percentage would be roughly 20%.

[Solid84]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yep that tracks... that's very high pressure to sack ratio... over 21%. If I had to guess most other teams are much lower than us - more in the 15% range...

I did the math on it in another thread some time ago.

 

The Colts were clear #1 with the Chiefs being 2nd at 19% and all other top teams being no higher than 17%.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]