Chris Ballard on Pat McAfee Show about the draft

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 minute ago, Yoshinator said:

Rodgers was holding his own before getting released. Releasing him had a bigger impact than a lot of people realize. He was a starting quality CB at times on the outside if needed.

Not only a starter but he has ball hawking ability and the knack for creating turnovers. Outside of Kenny and Blackmon we missed having playmakers on the outside and at safety.

[Yoshinator]

Just now, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I saw some highlights today of Simpson. He was on bowers during the Georgia game and did really well. From what I understand he may end up being Moore’s backup.  I do like Ballard went for guys with play making ability. Maybe we can get something like what we had with Rodger’s.

Yeah, I think I saw that a couple days ago. I mentioned how good he was at defending TEs and how I thought that was a major factor in Ballard drafting him. He could definitely be Moore's backup. Good job noticing that. I agree with you.

[Yoshinator]

Just now, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Not only a starter but he has ball hawking ability and the knack for creating turnovers. Outside of Kenny and Blackmon we missed having playmakers on the outside and at safety.

Yep. Baker was a disaster last year. Part of the reason I want a solid veteran at CB is just to get rid of Baker. He is an absolute liability at CB. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

6 minutes ago, Yoshinator said:

Yep. Baker was a disaster last year. Part of the reason I want a solid veteran at CB is just to get rid of Baker. He is an absolute liability at CB. 

Right now where we stand baker probably makes the team. That should not be happening. We still have Lammons too. Just find a cheaper vet who has some experience as insurance. Spend the money on safety. The way the afc is shaking out 11-6 could still miss  the playoffs. What happened with all the injured QB probably don’t happen this season.

[NewColtsFan]

16 minutes ago, Yoshinator said:

If we don't sign a veteran CB, I'll be disappointed. I understand there were a lot of injuries to the secondary last year and you want to go with your guys, but a veteran on a one-year deal like Howard or Witherspoon would really help this secondary IMO. 

Which do you want?   A veteran corner or a veteran safety?   Odds are extremely high you can’t have both.  

[NewColtsFan]

30 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

I know and I dont care.  We have not won much under him either tbh.  I can disagree with a gm and its not like his record here is that great

 

I could take or leave Chris Ballard at this point

Well…. Odds are you’re going to have to live with him for 2-3 more years.  It would appear CB is linked with Richardson.  That might last a few more years.  Hope you can find a way to enjoy the ride.  

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Which do you want?   A veteran corner or a veteran safety?   Odds are extremely high you can’t have both.  

I think a veteran CB would be more beneficial to the team as the Safeties have Blackmon as somewhat of a veteran option and also have a few FS's like Cross, Thomas, and Scott that we could see if they are good or not. The CB position has dead weight in Baker, and Lammons isn't that good either. We also have no veteran to balance out the position. Give me a veteran CB. It would also balance out the draft by still being able to get a startable player in FA at CB.

[Scott Pennock]

35 minutes ago, Yoshinator said:

Rodgers was holding his own before getting released. Releasing him had a bigger impact than a lot of people realize. He was a starting quality CB at times on the outside if needed.

He was released because he was disqualified for play (still) due to gambling. He was never going to be a factor last year.

[Yoshinator]

3 minutes ago, Scott Pennock said:

He was released because he was disqualified for play (still) due to gambling. He was never going to be a factor last year.

I know this. I'm only saying this because it was one of many factors why our secondary stunk last year.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I think colts could get a vet safety and CB. Safety will be the more expensive. Colts don’t need an expensive corner. Just insurance in case. Just depends how much that safety would cost.

[Scott Pennock]

My $0.02 

 

Brents - took his rookie lumps and learned on the fly and is a CB#1 type

Jones - same as Brents but is a solid boundary corner

Flowers - same as Jones/Brents until his untimely injury and looked like a solid boundary corner

Simpson - speed, ball skills and solid tackler

 

Moore - best NB in the league 

Abraham - same size as Moore minus the arm length, solid tackler and insane ball skills with an NFL pedigree 

 

Blackmon back at FS and Cross at SS is probably the best safety alignment but we still have Thomas (mixed bag of results) and Daniel Scott returning from injury as well.

 

Personally I am fine with our corners but if a Veteran like Simmons or Diggs chooses the up and coming team and contract over a more playoff ready (on paper) team then great!!!!

[Defjamz26]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

The game plan last year was to play the kids and let them learn on the job.  The Colts made zero moves brining in some decent free agent that would’ve helped, even in the short term.   
 

So for example, the last game of the season vs Houston, Ballard could’ve signed TE Zack Ertz to help for a game or playoffs if the Colts had won.  We didn’t. 
 

The kids took their lumps and Ballard expects them to be better this year after making the expected year two jump. 

I think the plan would’ve left us in the same spot. I think even if Rogers doesn’t get suspended, and Flowers and Brent’s stay healthy, I think we still would’ve said a veteran CB would have been a nice addition while adding competition in n his draft.

 

For what it’s worth though I think CB is a position Ballard will target in 2025 unless both the projected starters break out.

[krunk]

1 hour ago, Dunk said:

Re watch the Saint's game. Carr picked on Baker all game and completed like 12 of 14 on him. He  looked better in coverage later in the season, but his open field tackling killed us against the Texans. They seem to like him so maybe it's just me., but I was surprised when he was resigned following the season.  Hope the young man takes a big leap forward this year.

I'm not a giant believer in him either but he did get better as the year progressed. Not a bad guy to have as a backup since he now has a whole year under his belt as a starter and a reserve.  Saints are not an easy cover with guys like Olave out there and some of the others though. Baker has some good height weight speed traits if they believe him to be moldable.  I just think they are within their right to test what they think they saw first and then bring in the reinforcements if they are wrong.  There is plenty of time left to make adjustments to the secondary. You know Ballard will go all the way down to the end of preseason bringing in personnel.

[NewColtsFan]

49 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

I think the plan would’ve left us in the same spot. I think even if Rogers doesn’t get suspended, and Flowers and Brent’s stay healthy, I think we still would’ve said a veteran CB would have been a nice addition while adding competition in n his draft.

 

For what it’s worth though I think CB is a position Ballard will target in 2025 unless both the projected starters break out.

I think Ballard targets a CB in next years draft as well.   
 

As for veteran DB’s….  I suspect the Colts will sign a veteran like Rodney McCloud.  Someone willing to play for close to the vet minimum plus incentives.   
 

But if we want a top level free agent DB like Simmons or Diggs or Gilmore, then I think we will only be able to afford one.  I don’t think we will be able to afford both. 
 

Just thinking out loud. 

[compuls1v3]

7 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

At least he pounced on the opportunity instead of letting it go to waste, like he did with Bernard Raimann. 

? Correct me if I'm wrong.  Are you saying Raimann was a waste??

[jchandler7]

I like Brents, Moore & Jones but anyone saying we do not need more help at cb is clearly forgetting about week 18. Nico Collins, 9 for 9, 195 yards, 1 TD. Solid depth in the secondary and we would have been in the playoffs. 

I am a Ballard supporter but not addressing glaring holes because he "feels good about the young guys" frustrates the 💩 out of me. It has cost us games yr after yr.

Steven Nelson would be an excellent pickup for this team imo. He'd provide depth, mentorship & has the ability to play at a high level if/when needed. 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

So I’ve heard this argument before. My issue is the assumption or idea that Flowers and Rodgers were starting level corners. For all the hype with Rogers and the talk about how the Eagles got a steal, they went out and drafted 2 corners back to back and brought back Avonte Maddox.

 

Plus I really think Flowers starting was similar to Rodney Thomas. I don’t think they had anyone else and he was the best of an unproven group. On other teams, he’s probably CB3/4. I don’t think Flowers showed enough to say that him being healthy would have made a significant improvement in the secondary. 
 

Also, I liked the JuJu pick but at the end of the day he was a rookie. I think even if the plan before things went of the rails was to have a CB room comprised of an unproven rookie and two late round/UDFA corners from small schools who were mainly STs players, then that wasn’t the best game plan. 
 

Id argue that running it back with Brents and Jones (while still not ideal) is a better game plan than last year’s.

 

I guess the simple reply is that whether you agree or not that those guys were starting level corners, they were not available last year. So watching Baker and Brown get torched and saying 'we went into the season with a bad secondary and we're doing it again!' is a misrepresentation, IMO.

 

If we were to go more in depth, I'd disagree with your characterization of Rodgers. I think he was a solid starting option, and should have been playing more even sooner. And it wasn't until after the draft last year that anyone knew he was in trouble. Flowers was unproven, but I think he was better than the players who had to replace him. 

 

I agree with the last sentence. Assuming nothing drastic happens between now and the start of the season, I'd argue that this year's secondary should be better, just by virtue of the experience that players like Jones and Brents got last year, plus a hope for Flowers to return. And I think that's what Ballard and Co. are counting on. Whether we think that's the best strategy or not. I'd rather see them add a veteran, but I'm not going to harp on it endlessly, and I'll judge the plan on the results, not against my expectations.

[NewColtsFan]

8 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

At least he pounced on the opportunity instead of letting it go to waste, like he did with Bernard Raimann. 

Chad?   What does this even mean?   “Letting it go to waste like he did with Raimann”.   
 

Can you elaborate please?   You lost me. 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, Hoose said:

I agree with that take, but it’s truly rolling the dice. They need a FS and there is a solid one out there in Simmons. Cross may turn out to be a good player, but he wasn’t the answer last year, and you hate to think the Colts will rely on him at this most critical position on the D. A decent one year deal for Simmons would make sense with a team option in year 2. It gives them some flexibility now with no further commitment. Hope it happens. 

 

First, when I listened to Ballard on McAfee, I basically heard him say they're going to watch other teams sign veteran players, and they plan to roll with what they have. So that's what I expect.

 

Second, I think it's possible that people who talk about Cross and other players on the roster are overly critical. I guess we'll see.

 

Lastly, and this is more cynical on my part, I think the biggest problem with our pass coverage is the way the defense is called by Bradley. And that being the case, the most meaningful improvement will come from really good pass rush. So everyone is focused on who's playing corner and safety, and I'm more interested in what the defensive line does.

[Solid84]

I hope we’re not planning to play Blackmon at FS. He may have experience there but his worst football has been at FS. He’s by far a better SS. 
 

I think Cross is best as Blackmons backup at SS. Hope Scott can play FS, then we’ll have to rely on Thomas as his backup. 🤢

[krunk]

4 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I hope we’re not planning to play Blackmon at FS. He may have experience there but his worst football has been at FS. He’s by far a better SS. 
 

I think Cross is best as Blackmons backup at SS. Hope Scott can play FS, then we’ll have to rely on Thomas as his backup. 🤢

It's still to be determined bc he got hurt last year but Scott has everything you want as far as measurables and speed go. And he diagnose things well on tape on top of being an outstanding tackler. He is usually where he is supposed to be. 

[krunk]

6 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I guess the simple reply is that whether you agree or not that those guys were starting level corners, they were not available last year. So watching Baker and Brown get torched and saying 'we went into the season with a bad secondary and we're doing it again!' is a misrepresentation, IMO.

 

If we were to go more in depth, I'd disagree with your characterization of Rodgers. I think he was a solid starting option, and should have been playing more even sooner. And it wasn't until after the draft last year that anyone knew he was in trouble. Flowers was unproven, but I think he was better than the players who had to replace him. 

 

I agree with the last sentence. Assuming nothing drastic happens between now and the start of the season, I'd argue that this year's secondary should be better, just by virtue of the experience that players like Jones and Brents got last year, plus a hope for Flowers to return. And I think that's what Ballard and Co. are counting on. Whether we think that's the best strategy or not. I'd rather see them add a veteran, but I'm not going to harp on it endlessly, and I'll judge the plan on the results, not against my expectations.

Yeah I happen to like Flowers.

[BlackTiger]

8 hours ago, hoosierhawk said:

Then leave.

I didnt say I was leaving the forum, you have bad reading comprehension.  I wouldnt be mad if CB got fired, thats what those words mean.  I can take another year of him too.  I can also make a complaint on the forum if I want.

[MikeCurtis]

9 hours ago, BlackTiger said:

Personally I think even with Flowers and Brents we still have one of the worst CB groups in the league.

 

They are both just guys

I dont 100% disagree, and respectfully, 

 

There IS an economy in running a zone defense that the Colts run

 

Some teams go with man-to-man corners on an island

 

This allows you to blitz more often, keeping the QB guessing.

 

Its a BEAUTIFUL thing when you have the right TWO man-to-man CBs. They are harder to find, and are MUCH more expensive than a decent zone CB

 

THIS defense uses front 4 pressure  (supposedly  ) to shorten the time for the QB to find an open receiver

We use our money and priority draft picks on DL to support this defense.

 

THIS is the defense that we play

 

You can get by with a CB (less expensive) that can zone cover, and can tackle, that wouldn't survive in a man-to-man scheme

 

A 4.5 40 is fast enough for this scheme, but they DO have to tackle

 

IMHO, in this defense, you need pressure from the DL and a solid FS, to "erase" the coverage mistakes from CBs

 

I do have some concerns with our LBs in coverage as we didnt seem to keep up with crossers, RB releases, and TEs

 

 

We will see how it plays out, but I truly hope that we take a swing at a FA FS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BlackTiger]

19 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

I dont 100% disagree, and respectfully, 

 

There IS an economy in running a zone defense that the Colts run

 

Some teams go with man-to-man corners on an island

 

This allows you to blitz more often, keeping the QB guessing.

 

Its a BEAUTIFUL thing when you have the right TWO man-to-man CBs. They are harder to find, and are MUCH more expensive than a decent zone CB

 

THIS defense uses front 4 pressure  (supposedly  ) to shorten the time for the QB to find an open receiver

We use our money and priority draft picks on DL to support this defense.

 

THIS is the defense that we play

 

You can get by with a CB (less expensive) that can zone cover, and can tackle, that wouldn't survive in a man-to-man scheme

 

A 4.5 40 is fast enough for this scheme, but they DO have to tackle

 

IMHO, in this defense, you need pressure from the DL and a solid FS, to "erase" the coverage mistakes from CBs

 

I do have some concerns with our LBs in coverage as we didnt seem to keep up with crossers, RB releases, and TEs

 

 

We will see how it plays out, but I truly hope that we take a swing at a FA FS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hear you but most of the league runs zones more than man now and we still have one of the weaker groups of CBs.  That info from pff a couple years ago

[cdgacoltsfan]

9 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I hope flowers gets his explosiveness back because we need more speed and explosiveness at the other outside corner. I wish we had more speed. I would take a guy like Rodger’s over a guy like jones every day of the week. 

The Eagles love Rodgers so much that their first 2 picks were cornerbacks.

[cdgacoltsfan]

8 hours ago, Yoshinator said:

I know this. I'm only saying this because it was one of many factors why our secondary stunk last year.

Another factor is pressure rate. You do realize that the Colts drafted a guy named Latu and hired a dline coach named Partridge for a reason... right?

[DougDew]

11 hours ago, chad72 said:

But in DD's book, he just "lucked into it" when all he did was recognize the value like GMs are supposed to do. 

 

However, that is something that other GMs before that pick didn't see the same way with AD. So, if AD turns out good, it is again Ballard lucking himself into it, just preparing myself for that future argument 😉

And @Superman.  When did I ever say that Ballard didn't have the player he selected as his BPA the time he selected him? 

 

The luck comes into play when a talented player such as AM or Raimann falls and is your BPA when you're on the clock.  Its not like Ballard knew they would be there, and finally pulled the trigger before one of the other 31 GMs caught on to what he knew all along.   Ballard himself said he had no idea how this stuff plays out, and that he got lucky (that the guy he had as his BPA on the board was so talented).  Me and Chris seem to see the draft working the same way I guess. 

 

As far as Raimann, who appears to be a top 10 OT that was picked after a struggling AP and Woods...for whatever reason he was picked behind them.....the situation is no different than other players who turned out better than their draft slot would suggest:  Polian got lucky that Mathis turned out to be the player he did. (He had no idea). NE with Brady. (had no idea)  SF with Purdy. (had no idea).  And Ballard with Raimann.  Why would I choose to tell myself that Ballard's benefit from Raimann being a better player than he and every other 31 GM thought he would be (this early), is different than the luck Polian, BB, and Lynch benefitted from? 

 

In the interview, Ballard is being candid.  He is telling us that he (and other GMs) get lucky, when the convo is about specific players sometimes.

[chad72]

22 minutes ago, DougDew said:

And @Superman.  When did I ever say that Ballard didn't have the player he selected as his BPA the time he selected him? 

 

The luck comes into play when a talented player such as AM or Raimann falls and is your BPA when you're on the clock.  Its not like Ballard knew they would be there, and finally pulled the trigger before one of the other 31 GMs caught on to what he knew all along.   Ballard himself said he had no idea how this stuff plays out, and that he got lucky (that the guy he had as his BPA on the board was so talented).  Me and Chris seem to see the draft working the same way I guess. 

 

As far as Raimann, who appears to be a top 10 OT that was picked after a struggling AP and Woods...for whatever reason he was picked behind them.....the situation is no different than other players who turned out better than their draft slot would suggest:  Polian got lucky that Mathis turned out to be the player he did. (He had no idea). NE with Brady. (had no idea)  SF with Purdy. (had no idea).  And Ballard with Raimann.  Why would I choose to tell myself that Ballard's benefit from Raimann being a better player than he and every other 31 GM thought he would be (this early), is different than the luck Polian, BB, and Lynch benefitted from? 

 

In the interview, Ballard is being candid.  He is telling us that he (and other GMs) get lucky, when the convo is about specific players sometimes.

It makes far more sense when you bring in other GMs into it because unless you do it, knowing that you’re a Grigson fan, it felt you were trying everything to discredit Ballard.

[chad72]

7 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Chad?   What does this even mean?   “Letting it go to waste like he did with Raimann”.   
 

Can you elaborate please?   You lost me. 

I elaborated in a later post, as a reference to DougDew’s past arguments that it was purely luck that Raimann outplayed his draft slot. Then my contention that it was still Ballard and not another GM that took the swing to be the beneficiary thus not letting Raimann’s draft fall “go to waste” and cash in, so he deserves credit for taking that chance, just like blame for the swings and misses.

 

Flash forward, same thing with Mitchell.

[csmopar]

10 hours ago, tweezy32 said:

This secondary (safeties) are cheeks. If we really role with them as the starters I will continue to question Ballard. Like Simmons Diggs grab someone please!!

It’s entirely possible that they have offers out to those guys and they’re just not signing yet hoping for camp injuries that will give the player more leverage for more money

[csmopar]

37 minutes ago, DougDew said:

And @Superman.  When did I ever say that Ballard didn't have the player he selected as his BPA the time he selected him? 

 

The luck comes into play when a talented player such as AM or Raimann falls and is your BPA when you're on the clock.  Its not like Ballard knew they would be there, and finally pulled the trigger before one of the other 31 GMs caught on to what he knew all along.   Ballard himself said he had no idea how this stuff plays out, and that he got lucky (that the guy he had as his BPA on the board was so talented).  Me and Chris seem to see the draft working the same way I guess. 

 

As far as Raimann, who appears to be a top 10 OT that was picked after a struggling AP and Woods...for whatever reason he was picked behind them.....the situation is no different than other players who turned out better than their draft slot would suggest:  Polian got lucky that Mathis turned out to be the player he did. (He had no idea). NE with Brady. (had no idea)  SF with Purdy. (had no idea).  And Ballard with Raimann.  Why would I choose to tell myself that Ballard's benefit from Raimann being a better player than he and every other 31 GM thought he would be (this early), is different than the luck Polian, BB, and Lynch benefitted from? 

 

In the interview, Ballard is being candid.  He is telling us that he (and other GMs) get lucky, when the convo is about specific players sometimes.

That same argument can be made about any draft picks. From the 1st guy off the board to the last. Even UDFA, for example look at Jeff Saturday. 
 

there is a degree of luck to the draft. Absolutely. But there is also some skill involved and picking up on what traits increases the odds of the luck falling into your favor. Doesn’t mean it will of course. 

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, csmopar said:

That same argument can be made about any draft picks. From the 1st guy off the board to the last. Even UDFA, for example look at Jeff Saturday. 

Yes.  Its amazing that anybody would think of the draft working any other way.  Its even lucky to be sitting with the first pick when a generational QB declares for the NFL draft.  Or unlucky...like Pitt...when you need a QB and the best option coming out that year is Kenny Pickett.

 

Polian used to say...even when picking late in the first round..."the draft fell exactly the way we expected it to".  Always bluster, IMO.

 

Its like Poker.  You can strategize all you want, but if the cards fall against you, you are not going to win.  Nobody ever won a Table without luck working in their favor.  Its about experience and luck.  Genius or clairvoyance isn't part of it.  IMO. 

[DougDew]

57 minutes ago, chad72 said:

It makes far more sense when you bring in other GMs into it because unless you do it, knowing that you’re a Grigson fan, it felt you were trying everything to discredit Ballard.

"I (nobody) don't have any idea how this stuff will play out".  "We got lucky".   It means what it means.

 

Jesus, get off of it.  I'm not a Grigson fan and never was.  I was called that by people who probably think one GM should be fired because the new guy will have so much more genius and clairvoyance.   I'm not the guy who calls for firing the GM.  I know the next guy might not have any better success.  

 

Finally, after about 6 or 7 drafts did it start to sink in with many, that the new guy doesn't have gobs more special knowledge or talent than anybody else in that profession has. 

[AwesomeAustin]

11 hours ago, Yoshinator said:

I know this. I'm only saying this because it was one of many factors why our secondary stunk last year.

Maybe. Rodgers was just a part time starter anyways. He wasn’t bad for the Colts but wasn’t great either. He would have played with all the injuries but ultimately I feel the Colts viewed him as a decent backup. My theory is there were more issues with him than we knew and why he wasn’t playing as much in 2022 and was cut. It cost the colts nothing to keep him but they moved on quickly.  Saying he got himself suspended a year, I wouldn’t be surprised if their was behavior or attitude issues. Again, just a theory. 

[RollerColt]

So... I'm guessing we're going to need to create a season-long corner back room complaint thread? 

[Yoshinator]

7 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

So... I'm guessing we're going to need to create a season-long corner back room complaint thread? 

I know you're probably kidding, but the complaints would go away very quickly if we signed a veteran. In this case, it's somewhat likely Ballard will do something about it and appease the fanbase.

[RollerColt]

2 minutes ago, Yoshinator said:

I know you're probably kidding, but the complaints would go away very quickly if we signed a veteran. In this case, it's somewhat likely Ballard will do something about it and appease the fanbase.

The one part that I disagree with is appeasing the fanbase. I don't think he honestly cares about our opinions. Specifically on this website which represents a tiny fraction minority of the fans. If he thinks the corner room is fine (which it seems like he does) then we may find that who we have is who we get. 

 

Which is why I think this will be a common complaint throughout the season. 

[cdgacoltsfan]

10 minutes ago, Yoshinator said:

I know you're probably kidding, but the complaints would go away very quickly if we signed a veteran. In this case, it's somewhat likely Ballard will do something about it and appease the fanbase.

I doubt Ballard makes his decisions to appease the fan base.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

And @Superman.  When did I ever say that Ballard didn't have the player he selected as his BPA the time he selected him? 

 

The luck comes into play when a talented player such as AM or Raimann falls and is your BPA when you're on the clock.  Its not like Ballard knew they would be there, and finally pulled the trigger before one of the other 31 GMs caught on to what he knew all along.   Ballard himself said he had no idea how this stuff plays out, and that he got lucky (that the guy he had as his BPA on the board was so talented).  Me and Chris seem to see the draft working the same way I guess. 

 

As far as Raimann, who appears to be a top 10 OT that was picked after a struggling AP and Woods...for whatever reason he was picked behind them.....the situation is no different than other players who turned out better than their draft slot would suggest:  Polian got lucky that Mathis turned out to be the player he did. (He had no idea). NE with Brady. (had no idea)  SF with Purdy. (had no idea).  And Ballard with Raimann.  Why would I choose to tell myself that Ballard's benefit from Raimann being a better player than he and every other 31 GM thought he would be (this early), is different than the luck Polian, BB, and Lynch benefitted from? 

 

In the interview, Ballard is being candid.  He is telling us that he (and other GMs) get lucky, when the convo is about specific players sometimes.

 

We don't have to rehash this, right? You know where I stand, I know where you stand. My earlier post was tongue in cheek, with the expectation that you could take the joke. 

 

My thinking is that the Colts had several players rated similarly to AD Mitchell, which is why they were comfortable trading back. If they had him as a standout BPA on their board, they probably would have stayed at #46. JMO.