Why is Ballard not improving his Secondary?

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, Solid84 said:

 

Yup, but the jury’s still out on the ‘22 and ‘23 drafts. Downs and Raiman look like they could be monsters. AR has shown flashes and we keep hearing good things. Ogletree has showns flashes. But, how many “more-than-average” guys have we really got though?

 

I still think we’re at least one REALLY good draft away, but we’re trending in the trght direction. 👍

idk that the jury is out on Raimman being our franchise left tackle and downs being a key piece of the offense. I think those two have proven themselves. The rest of the bunch, absolutely. It takes time. 

[NewColtsFan]

5 hours ago, PackersNation said:

Justin Simmons had dinner with Saints "team personnel" last nite. The Saints are no more a Super Bowl contender than the Colts. So, obviously it's about money with Simmons. Screw him, he will be 31 in November, paying him big money is a mistake. Next.

It could also be about New Orleans.  Ever been there?    It is a hugely popular place to play for players.  Especially African Americans.   

[Superman]

Don't mean to pour gas on the fire, but...

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Safety Tracy Walker is expected to sign with the 49’ers today.  On and on it goes.  It’s almost 10AM and Simmons still hasn’t signed with the Saints.  I’m surprised actually.  So we will see.  I still believe the best course of action is to get Budda Baker for a one of our players and or a day two pick.  Then extend him.  He’s younger than Simmons and in his prime.  We would have no worries for the next three years at least with him at FS.  I would view it similar to the Buckner trade.  You just don’t need the higher draft capital and you close the whole at FS.  Extending him won’t break the bank either.  I’m all alone on this one but no big deal.  Just my opinion and perspective.

 

Tracy Walker is off the market?  Damn!  
 

And to think how many threads and how many hundreds of total posts there have been here about Tracy Walker!   All wasted. 
 

Oh wait.   
 

 

 

PS.  who is Tracy Walker? 

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

it is narrow in focus- because we are 3 weeks away from week 1 against CJ stroud and don’t feel very good about one position. 

Not to mention the last time we saw the secondary play, outside of Blackmon, was also against CJ Stroud in Week 18. And Nico Collins nearly went for 200 yards.
 

Now it’s likely Nico, Tank and Diggs out there for HOU.
 

Even if we know why Ballard is taking this approach, it’s natural to have concern. Sort of pragmatism vs. idealism in a way. 
 

 

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I agree the core is better and more stable now, but the rate of actual improvement is just too slow.
 

Current example and worst case, by the time Safety and CB are fixed guys like Buckner and Stewart will be too old to rely on. Then they’re starting over with another 3-4 year process of finding the right replacements and by the time that’s fixed our Oline will need updating and so on. That’s the drawback of not regularly bringing reliable veteran talent to secure a solid floor. 
 

The Colts will have to string together 2-4 really good drafts for them to get to an actual window of contention. 
 

And here we go again, I don’t want to derail this into bashing of the FO. I know it seriously bothers a lot of posters and I’m conciously trying to limit my particopation in that. Apologies. I will let it rest now. 

We have future drafts by which to fill future holes in the DT spots should they appear.  That's because the other guys around them should be here for 7 to 8 years.   That's not something the team has had under Ballard, with the exception of a LG and a RT....maybe another position or two.

 

Predicated upon the secondary developing, we can draft defense the way we drafted O the past two drafts..  With that big picture look......IOW, what this team looks like over the next 7 years....worrying too much about signing a mid level S to play this season and next is misplaced concern.   I assume Ballard will sign Simmons if there is a favorable deal, but I don't see it as a top priority as many here see it. 

 

But yes, I think most teams have to string together 2 to 4 good drafts to be a perennial contender.  Then comes the vet FAs like Simmons.

[AKB]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I agree with most of this post. I sincerely disagree with the last line of it. I don't think it's reasonable to expect this defense to be a legit top 10 defense, and I'd feel the same way if we had Ed Reed at FS. I think our defense is fundamentally flawed from a scheme standpoint, and the only way to make up for those flaws is a fearsome front four that gets consistent pressure on the QB. 

completely valid opinion.

i'm going based off stats already provided. this trash scheme seems to hold up, especially vs the run, and we got top 10 in sacks without true depth for the 4th quarter. so there is certainly an argument to be made, that if we improve our WORST unit, then our average defense can get close to a top 10 unit. 

 

i don't think that sounds too crazy at all tbh

[AKB]

7 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

Not to mention the last time we saw the secondary play, outside of Blackmon, was also against CJ Stroud in Week 18. And Nico Collins nearly went for 200 yards.
 

Now it’s likely Nico, Tank and Diggs out there for HOU.
 

Even if we know why Ballard is taking this approach, it’s natural to have concern. Sort of pragmatism vs. idealism in a way. 
 

 

as a colts fan i want ballards plan to work,

 

as someone who has predicted whats happening and complained about it all summer, I'm not surprised tbh,, and expect another .500 season. 

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

My concern is that our only veteran leader back there is Blackmon, who is on a year deal. So the youth aspect is not exactly a perfect situation, as the others are not under contract longterm either. Far from the cornerback situation. We simply don't have a longterm outlook at this moment at safety, and the depth of the unit is concerning given the injury history and the subpar play on the field.

Signing a FA a this point might provide some short term leadership, but it does nothing to solve a long term issue.

[AKB]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Signing a FA a this point might provide some short term leadership, but it does nothing to solve a long term issue.

well i think people are concerned about right now.

we can find the long-term answer in the draft. 

[DougDew]

Just now, AKB said:

well i think people are concerned about right now.

we can find the long-term answer in the draft. 

Yes.  Right now probably won't go much further with Simmons than without, so I don't see the issue as a Ballard bashing tool.  That was my thought with my initial post a few pages back.

[AKB]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Yes.  Right now probably won't go much further with Simmons than without, so I don't see the issue as a Ballard bashing tool.  That was my thought with my initial post a few pages back.

I think he signs someone during cutdowns. for sure at safety, and maybe a corner. 

for him to see what's happening in camp, and to NOT sign someone, would be one of the most bold things I've seen him do haha. 

but here was my prediciton in like june: ballard does ballard things
gus bradley gets blamed for his scheme *even though those not on this board consider him a top 10 coordinator* and he gets fired next.

shane brings a d coordinator, and demands ballard to supply players that can play man coverage.
big shocker, drafting players that can play man and zone adds flexibility for the coordinator
defense improves to middle of the pack in most categories
ballard is excused again>>

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

Even if we know why Ballard is taking this approach, it’s natural to have concern. Sort of pragmatism vs. idealism in a way. 

 

I think almost all of us are concerned. I'm not being idealistic. I think we should have done something at safety, and I've said it all along. But I've also said that I'd judge the results, rather than worrying about how the plan doesn't match my expectations.

 

Recent example, this time last year, everyone was talking about how Will Fries was the weak link of the OL, and we needed to sign Dalton Risner. I pretty much felt the same way. As it turns out, Fries had a decent season, the OL was mostly fine, and no one has even thought about Risner. 

[AKB]

Let's talk about it. 

 

 

On January 11, 2024, Colts general manager Chris Ballard announced that Bradley would return for the 2024 NFL season, after the Colts defense ranked 5th in sacks (51), 16th in takeaways (24) and 28th in points (24.4) during the 2023 NFL season.

 

"

7. Gus Bradley, Indianapolis Colts

While the Colts' defense went from blitzing on a league-low 15.6% of pass plays to 17.8% in 2023, that was still just the 31st-ranked rate in the league. Bradley’s defense played Cover 3 on a league-high 39.1% of snaps, while they played Cover 1 (man coverage with one deep safety) at a 7.3% clip, which was the second lowest in the NFL.

However, despite what many could call a predictable defense, Bradley’s unit was solid even without a consistent pass rush and with the most inexperienced cornerback group in the NFL." 

 

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-ranking-top-10-defensive-coordinators-entering-2024

 

 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, AKB said:

gus bradley gets blamed for his scheme *even though those not on this board consider him a top 10 coordinator* and he gets fired next.

 

Outside of PFF, who considers Bradley to be a top 10 coordinator? And by what metrics? 

[Yoshinator]

Caden Sterns just got released from the Panthers after failing his physical. He's only 24. Maybe we get him for cheap if no one wants him now?

[AKB]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Outside of PFF, who considers Bradley to be a top 10 coordinator? And by what metrics? 

so we pick and choose which stat we use from pff and which we don't?

 

let me ask you this - why did shane retain him 2 years in a row? if you focus on that question - we can get to the bottom of it very quickly using basic logic. 

[ColtStrong2013]

23 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Signing a FA a this point might provide some short term leadership, but it does nothing to solve a long term issue.

Do not disagree. Doesn’t mean Cross isn’t the starter either. Just means I think we need it, and head scratching why it hasn’t been done. 
 

There is going to be a lot to get done with safety this next offseason. Or- we keep kicking that can down the road. 

[AKB]

The 5 best coordinators in chargers history : at #2 GUS BRADLEY

 

 

https://boltbeat.com/posts/best-defensive-coordinators-chargers-history

 

 

Defense wins championships. But what if a team has never won a championship?

By Jason Reed | Jul 13, 2024

[Superman]

Just now, AKB said:

so we pick and choose which stat we use from pff and which we don't?

 

let me ask you this - why did shane retain him 2 years in a row? if you focus on that question - we can get to the bottom of it very quickly using basic logic. 

 

Do you consider PFF's rankings of defensive coordinators to be a "stat"? And do you consider me a person who puts a lot of stock into anyone's rankings?

 

I'd just like to know, since you said 'outside of this board he's considered a top 10 DC,' if that is based on anything other than this list from PFF. Genuine question.

 

To your bolded, I think Steichen kept Bradley because he's familiar with him from San Diego, and because this season Bradley agreed to make some adjustments to his supporting staff. I don't think that means Bradley is a good DC. And to be clear, I was not happy with Bradley being hired in the first place.

[ColtStrong2013]

6 minutes ago, Yoshinator said:

Caden Sterns just got released from the Panthers after failing his physical. He's only 24. Maybe we get him for cheap if no one wants him now?

What makes you think he wouldn’t fail physical here?

[ColtStrong2013]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

Recent example, this time last year, everyone was talking about how Will Fries was the weak link of the OL, and we needed to sign Dalton Risner. I pretty much felt the same way. As it turns out, Fries had a decent season, the OL was mostly fine, and no one has even thought about Risner. 

We were also fortunate to not have injury issues at guard… or the O-line would not have been mostly fine. For a gm that has touted needing 8-10 o-lineman, this feels like the first year the o-line is actually that. 

[AKB]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Do you consider PFF's rankings of defensive coordinators to be a "stat"? And do you consider me a person who puts a lot of stock into anyone's rankings?

 

I'd just like to know, since you said 'outside of this board he's considered a top 10 DC,' if that is based on anything other than this list from PFF. Genuine question.

 

To your bolded, I think Steichen kept Bradley because he's familiar with him from San Diego, and because this season Bradley agreed to make some adjustments to his supporting staff. I don't think that means Bradley is a good DC. And to be clear, I was not happy with Bradley being hired in the first place.

yes, the pff article is the most recent example. a quick search indicates that bradley is very  respected around the league. 

I'm not gonna get into it with you about stats, because I think it distracts from the main point here.


Chris Ballard and Shane Steichen decided to keep gus bradley, 2 years in a row. Your point that he kept him due to familiarity should indicate that shane knows the quality coordinator gus is. why would you keep someone who you know from your past is no good? it doesn't even make sense. 

you guys all want your cake and to eat it too. Gus can't be a trash coordinator unless you're willing to admit that shane wants a trash D coordinator, and so does ballard. 

 

so let me ask you this. - was that a bad judgment call by shane? couldn't he have easily decided to bring in his own guy?

 

so clearly it's not just PFF, it's our own coach. and GM

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/colts/news/chris-ballard-colts-coordinator-gus-bradley-returns

 

..."While the first question was regarding the contract of Bradley, the following one was a bit more pressing. It regarded the 28th rank in points allowed per game (24.4 in 2023) over the last two seasons. This prompted a more detailed reply from Ballard.

 

 

“I mean look, I know that’s been a hot topic for everybody," Ballard said. "Look, it’s an area we have to improve. In a little bit of defense, the year before (Bradley) comes in and we kind of had – I don’t want to say a veteran team, but we had some veteran players. Then I just said look, we’re going to go young in some spots. We went young in the secondary and look, there were some rough moments at times in the secondary and I don’t completely put that on them. I put that more on me, but how do you ever develop any continuity, especially with your own guys if you don’t just play them? ....

 

 

[Yoshinator]

Just now, ColtStrong2013 said:

What makes you think he wouldn’t fail physical here?

Panthers are the most incompetent team in the NFL. I don't necessarily trust them to evaluate players. Plus, not every set of doctors is the same. The Colts doctors are different from the Panthers doctors and could pass him. There could be a reason why he failed that isn't a big deal and we could get a good player as well for nothing. I'm also desperate as well lol. Maybe Ballard put in a claim for him and didn't get him before, We may never know that info.

[BeanDiasucci]

5 minutes ago, AKB said:

Let's talk about it. 

 

 

On January 11, 2024, Colts general manager Chris Ballard announced that Bradley would return for the 2024 NFL season, after the Colts defense ranked 5th in sacks (51), 16th in takeaways (24) and 28th in points (24.4) during the 2023 NFL season.

 

"

7. Gus Bradley, Indianapolis Colts

While the Colts' defense went from blitzing on a league-low 15.6% of pass plays to 17.8% in 2023, that was still just the 31st-ranked rate in the league. Bradley’s defense played Cover 3 on a league-high 39.1% of snaps, while they played Cover 1 (man coverage with one deep safety) at a 7.3% clip, which was the second lowest in the NFL.

However, despite what many could call a predictable defense, Bradley’s unit was solid even without a consistent pass rush and with the most inexperienced cornerback group in the NFL." 

 

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-ranking-top-10-defensive-coordinators-entering-2024

 

 

Last year's defense benefitted from playing many mediocre offenses and quarterbacks, which is, IMHO, a big reason the defense looked solid in some ways, although we did allow the third most points in the NFL. Although I have some concerns, I can't wait to see how much the young guys improve and how much difference a better pass rush will make against a tougher schedule of offenses and QBs this season (and, yes, I should probably just shut up about the young players until we actually see them play : ). 

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, BeanDiasucci said:

 

Hater: A person who actively and aggressively criticizes and disparages something or someone (such as a celebrity or public figure)

 

You love calling people haters if they make any criticism of Ballard. But do you really see much aggressive criticism of Ballard here? For a GM with a record six games under .500, no division titles, and only one playoff win in seven seasons, I think posters here are, for the most part, pretty positive about Ballard. I think he'd get a B or C+ grade from some of us who aren't as positive, but that isn't hate. Is it? Does everybody have to give him an A or they are a hater? During discussions here of where he stands among the league's GMs, I think the take of almost everyone I saw was that he's in the upper half or the middle. Is that hate? I see one person yesterday ranting about Ballard potentially being fired and nobody seems to agree with him. 

 

Using the hater label again and again feels like a bullying tactic to me to block all criticism and to silence those who disagree with your perhaps overly positive view of Ballard. 

It was a generic comment made about no one specifically.   
 

Allow me a question:  I just double checked your profile to be sure, and you’ve been a member since 2018.  Have you not noticed that traffic on this website has almost disappeared?   Our conversations this summer have basically been with the same 15 people.  And do you know how long it’s been that way?  Two plus years.    When you first arrived traffic here was roughly 5-10 times higher than now.  Sometimes even higher. 
 

Fans disappeared from this website during the disastrous 4-12-1 season of 2022.   And they haven’t come back.  So not even the excitement of a new head coach, a new QB that everyone seems to love and back to back successful drafts have brought the fan base back.  It’s a ghost town here. 
 

I have asked about it several times and the smartest people on this site basically say they’ll return when we’re winning.  So they missed one of the most enjoyable seasons in my 12.5 years of being a Colts fan.  
 

And as of today (summer) a number of our most celebrated Haters have taken time off.  I expect them back when the season starts.  
 

As for my defense of Ballard.  In various surveys done by reputable websites he has in the last few years been ranked between 14 and 19.   And I’ve not said one negative word about it.  He’s earned that ranking and I’ve said that.   I’ve even said if AR doesn’t work out, Ballard will be fired and should be fired. 
 

As for me being a bully, I have almost zero influence here.   The people who like me support me, and those who don’t give me a big eye roll.   IMO, there are three great posters and I’m not one of them.  But there are dozens and dozens of really good posters who make solid posts with ideas I hadn’t thought of.  And they keep me coming back.  
 

Im sorry you appear to not be a fan.  I think you got triggered by the generic use of one word. 
 

Apologies this went so long.  There was much to cover.   

[AKB]

3 hours ago, BeanDiasucci said:

 

Hater: A person who actively and aggressively criticizes and disparages something or someone (such as a celebrity or public figure)

 

You love calling people haters if they make any criticism of Ballard. But do you really see much aggressive criticism of Ballard here? For a GM with a record six games under .500, no division titles, and only one playoff win in seven seasons, I think posters here are, for the most part, pretty positive about Ballard. I think he'd get a B or C+ grade from some of us who aren't as positive, but that isn't hate. Is it? Does everybody have to give him an A or they are a hater? During discussions here of where he stands among the league's GMs, I think the take of almost everyone I saw was that he's in the upper half or the middle. Is that hate? I see one person yesterday ranting about Ballard potentially being fired and nobody seems to agree with him. 

 

Using the hater label again and again feels like a bullying tactic to me to block all criticism and to silence those who disagree with your perhaps overly positive view of Ballard. 

incredibly well said. the culture on the board shifted to disparage fans who criticized Ballard. a lot of them (us) don't bother anymore. 

if you complain about Ballard on here you have to do It in a very specific way, almost in a coddling manner not to upset some people.. 

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, AKB said:

incredibly well said. the culture on the board shifted to disparage fans who criticized Ballard. a lot of them (us) don't bother anymore. 

if you complain about Ballard on here you have to do It in a very specific way, almost in a coddling manner not to upset some people.. 

I'm probably the only person who doesn't bash Ballard in a coddling matter lol. I have no filter on this subject. You should never fear offending people when telling the truth. 

[AKB]

Just now, Yoshinator said:

I'm probably the only person who doesn't bash Ballard in a coddling matter lol. I have no filter on this subject. You should never fear offending people when telling the truth. 

sounds great in theory yoshi.

[krunk]

56 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

Not to mention the last time we saw the secondary play, outside of Blackmon, was also against CJ Stroud in Week 18. And Nico Collins nearly went for 200 yards.
 

Now it’s likely Nico, Tank and Diggs out there for HOU.
 

Even if we know why Ballard is taking this approach, it’s natural to have concern. Sort of pragmatism vs. idealism in a way. 
 

 

What did our offense do in that week 18 game? They struggled for the better part of the whole contest. That was an issue I think we are much better prepared for. Cross busted that one play on defense that gave Collins most of his yards but it's not like he kept making that same mistake the entire game. I think we have pretty good DBs on the interior to deal with Dell. I've not seen Diggs really kill us in any match up with Buffalo in the past and he is older now. I like the upgrade they did at RB.

 

I'm not too concerned if Blackmon is the one playing deep middle in this year's matchup with Cross in the box. We have athletic matches. It's just about guys not busting coverages on the mental side of things and tackling well.  They need to be worried about what we are doing on O with our upgrades. They didn't do so well last time they saw AR. Y'all are acting scary about a team we match up with pretty good across the board.

[ColtStrong2013]

4 minutes ago, krunk said:

What did our offense do in that week 18 game? They struggled for the better part of the whole contest. That was an issue I think we are much better prepared for. Cross busted that one play on defense that gave Collins most of his yards but it's not like he kept making that same mistake the entire game. I think we have pretty good DBs on the interior to deal with Dell. I've not seen Diggs really kill us in any match up with Buffalo in the past and he is older now. I like the upgrade they did at RB.

 

I'm not too concerned if Blackmon is the one playing deep middle in this year's matchup with Cross in the box. We have athletic matches. It's just about guys not busting coverages on the mental side of things and tackling well.  They need to be worried about what we are doing on O with our upgrades. They didn't do so well last time they saw AR. Y'all are acting scary about a team we match up with pretty good across the board.

the mental side AND the communication side. That’s my concern. Cross can run and cover anybody. It’s his reaction/communication that is my concern. There have been enough red flags around it to be concerned. He’s going to get targeted- I think he’s the clear weak spot of the defense. How does he communicate and react. How does he develop over the course of the season? 
 

I think it’s a huge year for his future. he doesn’t appear to be grabbing it by the horns like they hoped for.

[Superman]

39 minutes ago, AKB said:

yes, the pff article is the most recent example. a quick search indicates that bradley is very  respected around the league. 

 

So there are no other examples, right? There's no general consensus outside of this board that Bradley is a top ten DC. There's just a PFF list.

 

40 minutes ago, AKB said:

Chris Ballard and Shane Steichen decided to keep gus bradley, 2 years in a row. Your point that he kept him due to familiarity should indicate that shane knows the quality coordinator gus is. why would you keep someone who you know from your past is no good? it doesn't even make sense. 

you guys all want your cake and to eat it too. Gus can't be a trash coordinator unless you're willing to admit that shane wants a trash D coordinator, and so does ballard. 

 

so let me ask you this. - was that a bad judgment call by shane? couldn't he have easily decided to bring in his own guy?

 

so clearly it's not just PFF, it's our own coach. and GM

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/colts/news/chris-ballard-colts-coordinator-gus-bradley-returns

 

..."While the first question was regarding the contract of Bradley, the following one was a bit more pressing. It regarded the 28th rank in points allowed per game (24.4 in 2023) over the last two seasons. This prompted a more detailed reply from Ballard.

 

 

“I mean look, I know that’s been a hot topic for everybody," Ballard said. "Look, it’s an area we have to improve. In a little bit of defense, the year before (Bradley) comes in and we kind of had – I don’t want to say a veteran team, but we had some veteran players. Then I just said look, we’re going to go young in some spots. We went young in the secondary and look, there were some rough moments at times in the secondary and I don’t completely put that on them. I put that more on me, but how do you ever develop any continuity, especially with your own guys if you don’t just play them? ....

 

This is an instance where I disagree with Ballard and Steichen. They clearly think more highly of Bradley than I do, and I'm willing to accept that. But I didn't want Bradley before he was hired, I didn't like the choice to hire him, and I think everything he's done since he was hired is exactly what I thought he'd do, which reinforces my opinion that he's not a good DC. I didn't like the decision to keep him going into this season, either. I'm on the record on this, every step of the way. And I'm okay being at odds with Ballard and Steichen on this.

 

It's my hope that it's a good decision on their part to keep him. I've never called him a trash coordinator, but I wish we had someone better. I always have, and until I see evidence that he's a good coordinator, I'll continue to wish for someone better.

 

This is not me wanting to keep my cake and eat it, too. Again, I'm perfectly fine with disagreeing with Ballard and Steichen on this. This is more like you trying to prop up Bradley as an eventual scapegoat, in the event the team does decide to make a change. If/when Bradley gets fired for not producing a good defense, it will be because he's not a good defensive coordinator. 

[AKB]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So there are no other examples, right? There's no general consensus outside of this board that Bradley is a top ten DC. There's just a PFF list.

 

 

This is an instance where I disagree with Ballard and Steichen. They clearly think more highly of Bradley than I do, and I'm willing to accept that. But I didn't want Bradley before he was hired, I didn't like the choice to hire him, and I think everything he's done since he was hired is exactly what I thought he'd do, which reinforces my opinion that he's not a good DC. I didn't like the decision to keep him going into this season, either. I'm on the record on this, every step of the way. And I'm okay being at odds with Ballard and Steichen on this.

 

It's my hope that it's a good decision on their part to keep him. I've never called him a trash coordinator, but I wish we had someone better. I always have, and until I see evidence that he's a good coordinator, I'll continue to wish for someone better.

 

This is not me wanting to keep my cake and eat it, too. Again, I'm perfectly fine with disagreeing with Ballard and Steichen on this. This is more like you trying to prop up Bradley as an eventual scapegoat, in the event the team does decide to make a change. If/when Bradley gets fired for not producing a good defense, it will be because he's not a good defensive coordinator. 

"So there are no other examples, right? There's no general consensus outside of this board that Bradley is a top ten DC. There's just a PFF list."

 

--> (and chris ballard.. and shane steichen, clearly think he's fine) Right, isn't that the main point? Don't avoid the points that you can't explain away for arguments sake. the point isn't just a pff list, clearly our GM and coach kept him not once, but twice. 

 

I'm not trying to prop up Bradley for anything, IDC if he's kept or fired. I just like to point out hypocrisy when I see it. 

you agree with balalrd and steichen, but yet you think gus bradley is not a good coordinator.  (HA< ok.)

that entire post feels like a non-answer. so I'll just take it as that and move on. 

 

and trash - slang for not good , so yeah I guess you picked your own words, but a 'not-good' coordinator is also a trash coordinator. 

 

so the coach, the general manager, other coaches, and GMs, beat writers from other teams, and PFF all think bardley is a good coordinator, but you know better. Understood, and with that being said you also agree with shane keeping him.. because? Doesn't really make much sense. but I guess what I really got from your post is "I feel how I feel about gus, but I'm not going to hold chris or shane accountable for choosing him, because in some weird twisted way I actually agree with it..

 

haha. ok

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, AKB said:

So there are no other examples, right? There's no general consensus outside of this board that Bradley is a top ten DC. There's just a PFF list.

 

--> (and chris ballard.. and shane steichen, clearly think he's fine) Right, isn't that the main point? Don't avoid the points that you can't explain away for arguments sake. the point isn't just a pff list, clearly our GM and coach kept him not once, but twice. 

 

I'm not trying to prop up Bradley for anything, IDC if he's kept or fired. I just like to point out hypocrisy when I see it. 

you agree with balalrd and steichen, but yet you think gus bradley is not a good coordinator.  (HA< ok.)

that entire post feels like a non-answer. so I'll just take it as that and move on. 

 

and trash - slang for not good , so yeah I guess you picked your own words, but a 'not-good' coordinator is also a trash coordinator. 

 

so the coach, the general manager, other coaches, and GMs, beat writers from other teams, and PFF all think bardley is a good coordinator, but you know better. Understood, and with that being said you also agree with shane keeping him.. because? Doesn't really make much sense. but I guess what I really got from your post is "I feel how I feel about gus, but I'm not going to hold chris or shane accountable for choosing him, because in some weird twisted way I actually agree with it..

 

haha. ok

 

You didn't make any attempt to understand anything I said, did you?

 

1) You've literally predicted that Gus Bradley would be a scapegoat after this season. In writing. On this site.

 

2) You keep saying that I agree with Ballard and Steichen. I'm specifically saying that this is a topic on which I do NOT agree with them. Are we missing each other on this? You asked if it was bad judgment on Steichen's part; I said I disagree with the decision. How is that a non-answer?

 

I was critical of the hire in 2022. I understood retaining him in 2023 because Steichen already knew him, and had a short period of time to put together his staff. And I've been critical of keeping him in 2024. Again, I'm on the record here, and you can check if you'd like.

 

3) No, 'not good' and 'trash' are NOT the same thing, and I'm not okay with you attributing the latter to me. I've never called Bradley a trash coordinator, and I won't have that pointed at me. 

 

4) Source these other coaches, other GMs, beat writers, etc., who state that Bradley is a top ten DC. Or don't, but when you say 'everyone outside of this forum thinks he's top ten,' you should have something to back that up. Do you even think he's a top ten DC?

 

5) I don't think 'Ballard and Steichen hired/kept him, so they must think he's good' is a strong line of reasoning. I mean, I could say 'Ballard and the team have kept our safeties, they must think they're good.' Is that convincing to anyone? 

[AKB]

Just now, Superman said:

 

You didn't make any attempt to understand anything I said, did you?

 

1) You've literally predicted that Gus Bradley would be a scapegoat after this season. In writing. On this site.

 

2) You keep saying that I agree with Ballard and Steichen. I'm specifically saying that this is a topic on which I do NOT agree with them. Are we missing each other on this? You asked if it was bad judgment on Steichen's part; I said I disagree with the decision. How is that a non-answer?

 

I was critical of the hire in 2022. I understood retaining him in 2023 because Steichen already knew him, and had a short period of time to put together his staff. And I've been critical of keeping him in 2024. Again, I'm on the record here, and you can check if you'd like.

 

3) No, 'not good' and 'trash' are NOT the same thing, and I'm not okay with you attributing the latter to me. I've never called Bradley a trash coordinator, and I won't have that pointed at me. 

 

4) Source these other coaches, other GMs, beat writers, etc., who state that Bradley is a top ten DC. Or don't, but when you say 'everyone outside of this forum thinks he's top ten,' you should have something to back that up. Do you even think he's a top ten DC?

 

5) I don't think 'Ballard and Steichen hired/kept him, so they must think he's good' is a strong line of reasoning. I mean, I could say 'Ballard and the team have kept our safeties, they must think they're good.' Is that convincing to anyone? 

 

1) You've literally predicted that Gus Bradley would be a scapegoat after this season. In writing. On this site.

  

okay? I'm not advocating for this to take place. it's what I think will happen. I don't need to sit on here and campaign or try to convince the brains of readers that when he gets fired, that's why. I've never had an issue with being the minority on here. 

2) You keep saying that I agree with Ballard and Steichen. I'm specifically saying that this is a topic on which I do NOT agree with them. Are we missing each other on this? You asked if it was bad judgment on Steichen's part; I said I disagree with the decision. How is that a non-answer?

 

i think I did misread your explanation as to why you think shane kept Gus. I did misread it. 

 

3) No, 'not good' and 'trash' are NOT the same thing, and I'm not okay with you attributing the latter to me. I've never called Bradley a trash coordinator, and I won't have that pointed at me. 

 

this is probably due to an age or culture difference. those words , in that context, are the same thing. in the NFL anything that's not good, is trash. just simply due to competition levels. a corner that's not good is a trash corner, because he's gonna get trashed by the WR on the route. but I'm glad you were able to show the board you didn't use that word, and that I did.

 

4) Source these other coaches, other GMs, beat writers, etc., who state that Bradley is a top ten DC. Or don't, but when you say 'everyone outside of this forum thinks he's top ten,' you should have something to back that up. Do you even think he's a top ten DC?

 

i knew that list would provoke some emotions on this board because of how poor the defense has done here. the interesting thing is that PFF is used on this board for arguments sake countless times over and over. 

Did you ask me if I think Bradley is a top 10 coordinator? Do you think that's why I shared that? But then again, why would you ask me my true thoughts on the coordinator, when you think you know better than Shane and Ballard. 

 

I don't think he's a top 10 D-coordinator, and I also think his scheme was too simple - there's another conversation regarding rather or not he had the talent (WHICH, wraps all the way back to the original point. CLEARLY the coach, and general manager recognized the results of the defense were not due to scheme, but players. this can be decided logically, but luckily ballard is on record saying it, which I quoted above if you read it. 

 

the point is not about a PFF list, it's about multiple things, including the list. clearly gus is disliked more by biased fans who have seen a trash defense 2 years in a row. specifically secondary play.

 

5) I don't think 'Ballard and Steichen hired/kept him, so they must think he's good' is a strong line of reasoning. I mean, I could say 'Ballard and the team have kept our safeties, they must think they're good.' Is that convincing to anyone? 

 

-this by far is your weakest link in that argument. by default we must operate under the assumption that what the coach does and what the general manger does is intended to be for the best interest of the team. so they kept him knowing he is not good?

so are we tanking? - #5 feels intellectually dishonest. 

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

the Broncos ....then the Dolphins layed 70 plus on them

 

Was on a trip to the Rockies... watched it (and the Colts win in Baltimore) at a bar in Denver surrounded by Broncos fans. One of the highlights of the entire trip. All-time classic watching the blood drain out of their faces. 

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, AKB said:

okay? I'm not advocating for this to take place. it's what I think will happen. I don't need to sit on here and campaign or try to convince the brains of readers that when he gets fired, that's why. I've never had an issue with being the minority on here. 

 

I'm not saying you're advocating for it to take place, as if that would matter. I'm saying that you've been laying the groundwork to make the argument, in the event Bradley is fired. As if it can't be the case that he gets fired because he didn't do a good job coaching his unit. In your argument, Bradley will be fired as a way for Ballard to avoid being held accountable. These are your words.

 

Quote

this is probably due to an age or culture difference. those words , in that context, are the same thing. in the NFL anything that's not good, is trash. just simply due to competition levels. a corner that's not good is a trash corner, because he's gonna get trashed by the WR on the route. but I'm glad you were able to show the board you didn't use that word, and that I did.

 

I don't know what to attribute it to, but in the rare instance that I use the word "trash" in reference to the job someone is doing, I mean it very strongly. If I said Bradley was a trash DC, I would mean he's one of the very worst in the business, and he has no value in that job. So me saying I don't think he's good should not be translated into "trash." It's not the same thing, it's a misrepresentation of my viewpoint.

 

Quote

i knew that list would provoke some emotions on this board because of how poor the defense has done here. the interesting thing is that PFF is used on this board for arguments sake countless times over and over. 

 

It doesn't provoke emotions on my part, because I don't use PFF to validate my opinions. I think some people are overly dismissive of the work PFF produces, and other people are overly beholden to PFF's grading and rankings. That's my opinion. And the same way I didn't really care when they were calling Chris Ballard a top five GM (or whatever ranking they gave him, it was high), I don't think it matters that they're calling Bradley the 7th best DC in the NFL. 

 

I'm pushing back now because a) you've taken to repeating their ranking as if it's scripture, and b) you're taking their ranking as general consensus, which I don't think is accurate. Which is why I asked if there's any other outlet ranking him that way. 

 

Quote

Did you ask me if I think Bradley is a top 10 coordinator? Do you think that's why I shared that? But then again, why would you ask me my true thoughts on the coordinator, when you think you know better than Shane and Ballard. 

 

Yeah, I just asked you. Because it seems like you're okay presenting him as if he's top ten, but you're not offering any argument to support that ranking. And as you go on to state, you don't agree with that ranking yourself. 

 

Quote

I don't think he's a top 10 D-coordinator, and I also think his scheme was too simple - there's another conversation regarding rather or not he had the talent (WHICH, wraps all the way back to the original point. CLEARLY the coach, and general manager recognized the results of the defense were not due to scheme, but players. this can be decided logically, but luckily ballard is on record saying it, which I quoted above if you read it. 

 

The question I keep asking about Bradley is whether he brings anything meaningful to the table. If the only way the defense can become better is by adding better players, then what responsibility does the DC bear? How should he be evaluated? I know the talent needs to be better, that's not even debatable. But I also think Bradley needs to gameplan better, and be less conservative and predictable. But we have a solid decade of evidence that Bradley will not change.

 

Quote

the point is not about a PFF list, it's about multiple things, including the list. clearly gus is disliked more by biased fans who have seen a trash defense 2 years in a row. specifically secondary play.

 

I didn't like Bradley before he produced a bad defense two years in a row, so I don't think it's fan bias. (By the way, I think the 2022 defense deserved some credit for holding it together most of the season, under difficult circumstances. I'm on the record there, as well. I still don't like Bradley as a DC.)

 

Quote

 

"5) I don't think 'Ballard and Steichen hired/kept him, so they must think he's good' is a strong line of reasoning. I mean, I could say 'Ballard and the team have kept our safeties, they must think they're good.' Is that convincing to anyone? "

 

-this by far is your weakest link in that argument. by default we must operate under the assumption that what the coach does and what the general manger does is intended to be for the best interest of the team. so they kept him knowing he is not good?

so are we tanking? - #5 feels intellectually dishonest. 

 

 

To the bolded, are you serious? Do you think that's my argument? Your conclusion is what seems intellectually dishonest.

 

But to be clear, I don't think they kept him knowing he's not good. The fact that they kept him does not indicate that they are not doing what's best for the team. It indicates that they think more highly of Bradley than I do. And I accept that, and am happy to be proved wrong this season.

[AKB]

Just now, Superman said:

 

I'm not saying you're advocating for it to take place, as if that would matter. I'm saying that you've been laying the groundwork to make the argument, in the event Bradley is fired. As if it can't be the case that he gets fired because he didn't do a good job coaching his unit. In your argument, Bradley will be fired as a way for Ballard to avoid being held accountable. These are your words.

 

 

I don't know what to attribute it to, but in the rare instance that I use the word "trash" in reference to the job someone is doing, I mean it very strongly. If I said Bradley was a trash DC, I would mean he's one of the very worst in the business, and he has no value in that job. So me saying I don't think he's good should not be translated into "trash." It's not the same thing, it's a misrepresentation of my viewpoint.

 

 

It doesn't provoke emotions on my part, because I don't use PFF to validate my opinions. I think some people are overly dismissive of the work PFF produces, and other people are overly beholden to PFF's grading and rankings. That's my opinion. And the same way I didn't really care when they were calling Chris Ballard a top five GM (or whatever ranking they gave him, it was high), I don't think it matters that they're calling Bradley the 7th best DC in the NFL. 

 

I'm pushing back now because a) you've taken to repeating their ranking as if it's scripture, and b) you're taking their ranking as general consensus, which I don't think is accurate. Which is why I asked if there's any other outlet ranking him that way. 

 

 

Yeah, I just asked you. Because it seems like you're okay presenting him as if he's top ten, but you're not offering any argument to support that ranking. And as you go on to state, you don't agree with that ranking yourself. 

 

 

The question I keep asking about Bradley is whether he brings anything meaningful to the table. If the only way the defense can become better is by adding better players, then what responsibility does the DC bear? How should he be evaluated? I know the talent needs to be better, that's not even debatable. But I also think Bradley needs to gameplan better, and be less conservative and predictable. But we have a solid decade of evidence that Bradley will not change.

 

 

I didn't like Bradley before he produced a bad defense two years in a row, so I don't think it's fan bias. (By the way, I think the 2022 defense deserved some credit for holding it together most of the season, under difficult circumstances. I'm on the record there, as well. I still don't like Bradley as a DC.)

 

 

To the bolded, are you serious? Do you think that's my argument? Your conclusion is what seems intellectually dishonest.

 

But to be clear, I don't think they kept him knowing he's not good. The fact that they kept him does not indicate that they are not doing what's best for the team. It indicates that they think more highly of Bradley than I do. And I accept that, and am happy to be proved wrong this season.

 

a - I'm saying that you've been laying the groundwork to make the argument, in the event Bradley is fired. 

 

b - As if it can't be the case that he gets fired because he didn't do a good job coaching his unit. I

 

a --> I didn't lay any groundwork. I stated my opinion and listed my premises as to why I saw it that way. You're mischaracterizing me as a campaigner. I state my opinion, and when someone contests it, I debate with them until I feel there's nothing left to gain. And for someone to be pigeonholing my opinion, but then to take such offense to a word like trash is again, hypocritical. 

 

b --> so you're saying that I am committed to one train of thought and that if Bradley truly did have a defensive meltdown I wouldn't be capable of admitting that because of my previous opinions. --Yeah, this is just not true. But if that's your opinion of me as a poster, that's fine.  Again, just because someone holds an opposing view, does not make them an extremist, or make them unable to think logically. 

 

"It's a misrepresentation of my viewpoint."

 

isn't that hypocritical? you're basically stating you know my position beforehand, and what I am campaigning or setting something up to be, I use the word trash instead of not good, and now I'm mischaracterizing you? that's a very far reach, and again, hypocritical in this conversation. 

 

I'm pushing back now because a) you've taken to repeating their ranking as if it's scripture, and b) you're taking their ranking as general consensus, which I don't think is accurate. Which is why I asked if there's any other outlet ranking him that way. 

 

and you assumed that before asking me what my intent was for posting that. my intent was posting it to create conversation about Bradley, it's interesting, and it's an interesting rating. it's not because I believe it's scripture, and again not sure if you are reading what I type, but I do not think Gus is a top 10 defensive coordinator. So how could I say it's scripture? The point, which you are avoiding like COVID, is that he isn't viewed as that bad around the league. Does that mean he's 7th best? no. it doesn't. 

But it certainly supports the narrative that his defense was under-manned, and admitted by Ballard. which is the WHOLE point of this thread. Maybe you are missing the point a bit, You seem to state what I think as if you're in my mind. I rarely ever post pff articles, or use them for argument's sake. but this board loves PFF, so that's why it got posted. And again, you keep sticking to this pff point because you think it undermines the main point.("consensus") which is that Ballard and Shane like Gus. if they didn't he wouldn't be here. Between Shane and Gus, there is a "consensus", and they doubled down!

 

The question I keep asking about Bradley is whether he brings anything meaningful to the table. If the only way the defense can become better is by adding better players, then what responsibility does the DC bear? How should he be evaluated? I know the talent needs to be better, that's not even debatable. But I also think Bradley needs to gameplan better, and be less conservative and predictable. But we have a solid decade of evidence that Bradley will not change.

 

I feel like you pick and choose when to apply your logic. Any system will struggle with a 7th-round cornerback and a 7th-round safety, right? it's not about needing the best players at every position. it's about needing serviceable players at every position, and key players at scheme-specific PON. And the less predictable point you make is easily, and countered by make what more complex? make the coverages more complex for a 7th-rounder corner. for a bonehead safety that smacks his player in practice? Why in the world would he make it more complicated for those players? IDC if we keep Bradley, but it's very clear to me that not just you, but many posters in here are picking and choosing selective blame. 

 

Shane is a great young mastermind... right? that's the general opinion, wait let me fix that, because you'll make it about the semantics of that statement. Shane was a rookie COTY candidate... regarded as a respected offensive mind... and he kept Gus. But wait.. you know better. right? Shane clearly kept him on his staff to make himself look better in practice reps. 

 

******It indicates that they think more highly of Bradley than I do. And I accept that, and am happy to be proved wrong thisseason *******

season. - Superman

 

and that's the whole point, everything else is semantics and pigeonholing my opinion to be a campaign. 

[BeanDiasucci]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

It was a generic comment made about no one specifically.   
 

Allow me a question:  I just double checked your profile to be sure, and you’ve been a member since 2018.  Have you not noticed that traffic on this website has almost disappeared?   Our conversations this summer have basically been with the same 15 people.  And do you know how long it’s been that way?  Two plus years.    When you first arrived traffic here was roughly 5-10 times higher than now.  Sometimes even higher. 
 

Fans disappeared from this website during the disastrous 4-12-1 season of 2022.   And they haven’t come back.  So not even the excitement of a new head coach, a new QB that everyone seems to love and back to back successful drafts have brought the fan base back.  It’s a ghost town here. 
 

I have asked about it several times and the smartest people on this site basically say they’ll return when we’re winning.  So they missed one of the most enjoyable seasons in my 12.5 years of being a Colts fan.  
 

And as of today (summer) a number of our most celebrated Haters have taken time off.  I expect them back when the season starts.  
 

As for my defense of Ballard.  In various surveys done by reputable websites he has in the last few years been ranked between 14 and 19.   And I’ve not said one negative word about it.  He’s earned that ranking and I’ve said that.   I’ve even said if AR doesn’t work out, Ballard will be fired and should be fired. 
 

As for me being a bully, I have almost zero influence here.   The people who like me support me, and those who don’t give me a big eye roll.   IMO, there are three great posters and I’m not one of them.  But there are dozens and dozens of really good posters who make solid posts with ideas I hadn’t thought of.  And they keep me coming back.  
 

Im sorry you appear to not be a fan.  I think you got triggered by the generic use of one word. 
 

Apologies this went so long.  There was much to cover.   

 

I think it's true that fans will come back here if the Colts start winning in a big way. I would expect to see some of that. But I also wonder if the addition of multiple Colts' groups and sites on Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, and other websites and social media is a significant factor in the decrease in activity here (the official Colts Reddit page has 150K members). Colts.com may be facing a lot more competition for Colts fans than it was six years ago, or even a couple of years ago. It may be that former Colts.com posters didn't miss last season by not being here, but that they enjoyed it elsewhere.

 

I should learn just to laugh and forget it when people call others haters, although in this case, few Colts fans hate Ballard or criticize him aggressively (and if they do, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that, even if they're wrong?). I think calling these posters haters is an effort to devalue their opinions and/or silence them. Here's an idea to even the scales -- in response to "haters," how about we start calling Ballard lovers "maters" because they want to protect Ballard like his mom would (mater means mom) or like his mate would (mater also means someone who mates). It's stupid and I need to do better, but at least it's more original than that angsty 2010s teen cliche, "You're a hater."

 

Okay, that's way too much from me. Later Mater! 

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, AKB said:

a - I'm saying that you've been laying the groundwork to make the argument, in the event Bradley is fired. 

 

b - As if it can't be the case that he gets fired because he didn't do a good job coaching his unit. I

 

a --> I didn't lay any groundwork. I stated my opinion and listed my premises as to why I saw it that way. You're mischaracterizing me as a campaigner. I state my opinion, and when someone contests it, I debate with them until I feel there's nothing left to gain. And for someone to be pigeonholing my opinion, but then to take such offense to a word like trash is again, hypocritical. 

 

b --> so you're saying that I am committed to one train of thought and that if Bradley truly did have a defensive meltdown I wouldn't be capable of admitting that because of my previous opinions. --Yeah, this is just not true. But if that's your opinion of me as a poster, that's fine.  Again, just because someone holds an opposing view, does not make them an extremist, or make them unable to think logically. 

 

"It's a misrepresentation of my viewpoint."

 

isn't that hypocritical? you're basically stating you know my position beforehand, and what I am campaigning or setting something up to be, I use the word trash instead of not good, and now I'm mischaracterizing you? that's a very far reach, and again, hypocritical in this conversation. 

 

If you don't see a difference between me using your words, and you changing my words, then I don't know what to say. You have literally, actually, presented Bradley as an eventual scapegoat. It's the word you've used in other threads, and it's the concept you described earlier in this thread. 

 

I have NEVER called Bradley trash, and I object to you attributing that to me. That's hypocritical?? Come on. 

 

Quote

And again, you keep sticking to this pff point because you think it undermines the main point.("consensus") which is that Ballard and Shane like Gus. if they didn't he wouldn't be here. Between Shane and Gus, there is a "consensus", and they doubled down!

 

Is this the main point? Ballard and Steichen like Bradley, so case closed? Wouldn't that logic apply to every team decision? This is a very ironic argument on your part.

 

Quote

I feel like you pick and choose when to apply your logic. Any system will struggle with a 7th-round cornerback and a 7th-round safety, right? it's not about needing the best players at every position. it's about needing serviceable players at every position, and key players at scheme-specific PON.

 

I think I'm asking a legitimate question. How should Bradley be evaluated? Let's agree that the personnel needs to be better. So now what? Are we unable to judge Bradley on the defensive results until the personnel is "good enough"? 

 

Quote

 

And the less predictable point you make is easily, and countered by make what more complex? make the coverages more complex for a 7th-rounder corner. for a bonehead safety that smacks his player in practice? Why in the world would he make it more complicated for those players? IDC if we keep Bradley, but it's very clear to me that not just you, but many posters in here are picking and choosing selective blame. 

 

 

I'm not arguing for a complicated defense. My problem with Bradley is not that our defense isn't exotic. It's that we run the most conservative defense in the NFL, and whenever we do make adjustments, it's to make the defense even more conservative. Bradley's fundamental guiding principle is to avoid big plays, but we didn't even do that last season, so what's the benefit in being so conservative? We run two coverages 70% of the time, with little to no disguise, and it doesn't produce good results. 

 

Except the Ravens game last year. Which proves that Bradley does understand the benefit of opponent-specific gameplanning, he does see value in making adjustments, and he does believe that his defensive personnel can handle a more aggressive approach. But he won't use it outside of that one game...

 

These are the reasons I don't think Bradley is a good DC, and I don't think they're dependent on the personnel. I would love to zero in on this part of the conversation.

 

Quote

Shane is a great young mastermind... right? that's the general opinion, wait let me fix that, because you'll make it about the semantics of that statement. Shane was a rookie COTY candidate... regarded as a respected offensive mind... and he kept Gus. But wait.. you know better. right? Shane clearly kept him on his staff to make himself look better in practice reps. 

 

So whenever I disagree with the HC, I should be beat over the head with his credentials? Again, apply this logic to any discussion about team decisions on this site. How does that work? 

 

'Chris Ballard is a former Exec of the Year, PFF ranked him top five, and Irsay kept him... but you know better, right?'

 

Do you really think that's a solid argument?