Report: Brents to IR

[DougDew]

14 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Same is available for all positions. Here's CB:

 

https://walterfootball.com/freeagents2024CB.php

It seems that to get a non JAG CB, it would have to have been either a multi year contract at about $6M per year, or a 1 year $10M.  I don't see where that changes our ability to win a SB, and I don't care about having a team with a ceiling of Division winner rather than 7-10.   

 

Not advancing beyond winning the Division is the same to me as a failed season. 

 

Developing young CBs advances our ability to win a SB in a few years than does doing anything that wins a Division for one season.  My personal choice.

[Solid84]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

It seems that to get a non JAG CB, it would have to have been either a multi year contract at about $6M per year, or a 1 year $10M.  I don't see where that changes our ability to win a SB, and I don't care about having a team's ceiling of Division winner rather than 7-10.   Developing young CBs advances our ability to win a SB in a few years than does doing anything that wins a Division for one season.  My personal choice.

• It would secure a higher floor of safety play, which we need.
• It would (currently) secure a higher ceiling, which we need.
• It would be easily affordable, even for Ballard.
• It would allow our young players to develop behind a proven veteran. There's no guarantee a rookie will turn out even good enough. If we spend 2-3 years giving a rookie reps and they don't turn out good enough we're back to square one and need another 2-3 years of development on a new player. That's not how you get to a high level of competition.

Secure a solid floor, then develop players behind that. My personal choice.

 

Edit: Look at Brents at CB. 2 years wasted because of injuries. We can't start him next season because he'll essentially be a year 3 rookie. So, Ballard's approach will likely be to draft another guy and hope he develops within 2-3 years. Fingers crossed it's not a bust or another injury-victim. 🤞

[throwing BBZ]

34 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

I couldn't disagree with you more here about Safety being a need. 

 

On top of that, now Blackmon wasn't a practice yesterday.......ei carambe 

 

 

 

 

 Understood that we have "knowledgeable fans" that dismiss Blackmon and Cross as our starters. Can't understand that 3rd year Thomas can be a good player. That Harrison could be a decent depth player. That drafting future successful S in later rounds is common. 

 I believe our draft fell well for us. 

 And also believe that our management and Capologist have set us up for future success.

 "Outside of the bombs, AR was 6 for 16 for 41 yards and a pick. His completion rate was simply Tebow-like."  I'm optimistic post Frank. But it's measured with reason and logic. 

 

 We're you one of our Scholars predicting a big breakout year for Pierce?

One touting Pittman as a true #1?

 Thought our LB's were really good, the kind you see playing in the SB?

Did you speak up about the Quality of our TE's?

We're you high on our DL, its ability to pressure the QB, and it's depth?

 How about our OL and it's depth? 

  Bolderdash!!   We are young, young at playing as a unit, and still at least a season away from being a winning team. 

 Bortolini has to replace Kelly.

 Goncalves or Freeland has to replace Smith.

 Cross needs to become Good.

Mitchell has to become very Good.

 Latu needs to become Extremely good.

 We need a high quality LB.

 We need better TE contribution.

  When all of this has the Look of coming together, that is when the Irsays and their Capologist will wholeheartedly push the franchise to the edge for SB success.

[lollygagger8]

11 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Understood that we have "knowledgeable fans" that dismiss Blackmon and Cross as our starters. Can't understand that 3rd year Thomas can be a good player. That Harrison could be a decent depth player. That drafting future successful S in later rounds is common. 

 I believe our draft fell well for us. 

 And also believe that our management and Capologist have set us up for future success.

 "Outside of the bombs, AR was 6 for 16 for 41 yards and a pick. His completion rate was simply Tebow-like."  I'm optimistic post Frank. But it's measured with reason and logic. 

 

 We're you one of our Scholars predicting a big breakout year for Pierce?

One touting Pittman as a true #1?

 Thought our LB's were really good, the kind you see playing in the SB?

Did you speak up about the Quality of our TE's?

We're you high on our DL, its ability to pressure the QB, and it's depth?

 How about our OL and it's depth? 

  Bolderdash!!   We are young, young at playing as a unit, and still at least a season away from being a winning team. 

 Bortolini has to replace Kelly.

 Goncalves or Freeland has to replace Smith.

 Cross needs to become Good.

Mitchell has to become very Good.

 Latu needs to become Extremely good.

 We need a high quality LB.

 We need better TE contribution.

  When all of this has the Look of coming together, that is when the Irsays and their Capologist will wholeheartedly push the franchise to the edge for SB success.

 

Not sure why you went off the deep end, but I'll get us back on track 

 

I said we could use help at safety. We need CB too. Everyone knew all this even before training camp

Cross is meh (ok tackler?). Blackmon is pretty decent. Thomas hasn't been good at all. Harrison would be starting if he was better than current starters.  So again, we could do ALOT better at S (and CB). 

 

[throwing BBZ]

41 minutes ago, DougDew said:

It seems that to get a non JAG CB, it would have to have been either a multi year contract at about $6M per year, or a 1 year $10M.  I don't see where that changes our ability to win a SB, and I don't care about having a team with a ceiling of Division winner rather than 7-10.   

 

Not advancing beyond winning the Division is the same to me as a failed season. 

 

Developing young CBs advances our ability to win a SB in a few years than does doing anything that wins a Division for one season.  My personal choice.

 

 Thank you Doug, I like your position.

The last draft had for me, exciting options at CB for where we were drafting.

 If no Latu, one of those picks would have excited many of our whiners.

 I hope Latu becomes a player that satisfies them someday.

  Coming into the season I felt no particular optimism about Jaylen Jones.

Today, and I am closely watching him, I think he has considerable ability in coverage and he is downright physical defending the line of scrimmage.

 I do have little doubt though that next draft I will have a stud corner or two on my wish list. 

 And with our pipeline on offense looking strong, our next draft and FA period we can go all-in on D. lol

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Understood that we have "knowledgeable fans" that dismiss Blackmon and Cross as our starters. Can't understand that 3rd year Thomas can be a good player. That Harrison could be a decent depth player. That drafting future successful S in later rounds is common. 

 I believe our draft fell well for us. 

 And also believe that our management and Capologist have set us up for future success.

 "Outside of the bombs, AR was 6 for 16 for 41 yards and a pick. His completion rate was simply Tebow-like."  I'm optimistic post Frank. But it's measured with reason and logic. 

 

 We're you one of our Scholars predicting a big breakout year for Pierce?

One touting Pittman as a true #1?

 Thought our LB's were really good, the kind you see playing in the SB?

Did you speak up about the Quality of our TE's?

We're you high on our DL, its ability to pressure the QB, and it's depth?

 How about our OL and it's depth? 

  Bolderdash!!   We are young, young at playing as a unit, and still at least a season away from being a winning team. 

 Bortolini has to replace Kelly.

 Goncalves or Freeland has to replace Smith.

 Cross needs to become Good.

Mitchell has to become very Good.

 Latu needs to become Extremely good.

 We need a high quality LB.

 We need better TE contribution.

  When all of this has the Look of coming together, that is when the Irsays and their Capologist will wholeheartedly push the franchise to the edge for SB success.

I see you no longer think Smith should replace Fries.  I wonder why.  Oh, Freeland wasn’t even active for the Texans game.  Bortoloni will eventually replace Kelly.  Not anytime soon that’s for sure.  Pierce should have a big year now that we have a quarterback who can hit him deep.  I think our DL is going to be great.  Four sacks and double digit pressures is nothing to sneeze at against a very good division rival.  I think Jones is going to be good but I’m worried about Brent’s ability to stay healthy.  Womack is going to be a great pickup imo.  The team is in a great place.  I’m going to enjoy this season and not worry about replacing players sometime down the road.  We have a good front office and coach.  It’s coming together.

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, Solid84 said:

• It would secure a higher floor of safety play, which we need.
• It would (currently) secure a higher ceiling, which we need.
• It would be easily affordable, even for Ballard.
• It would allow our young players to develop behind a proven veteran. There's no guarantee a rookie will turn out even good enough. If we spend 2-3 years giving a rookie reps and they don't turn out good enough we're back to square one and need another 2-3 years of development on a new player. That's not how you get to a high level of competition.

Secure a solid floor, then develop players behind that. My personal choice.

 

Edit: Look at Brents at CB. 2 years wasted because of injuries. We can't start him next season because he'll essentially be a year 3 rookie. So, Ballard's approach will likely be to draft another guy and hope he develops within 2-3 years. Fingers crossed it's not a bust or another injury-victim. 🤞

I thought this was a thread about Brents' injury and the assumption that the lack of a JAG vet backup CB was going to materially hinder the season.

 

I don't care about floors.  I only care about ceiling's, and the goal, IMO, is to keeping building a roster that can go to the AFCCG.  Division winner ceiling does not spark much enthusiasm from me.

 

Its why I've dogged Ballard for 7 years on roster construction.  Sure, you can get to the AFCCG with Rivers, Wentz, or Ryan, but you need dynamic players around them, primarily in the passing game.  The WRs, TEs, and LTs were bad, and the DEs and coverage LBers were not high quality either.  Now it seems the offensive pieces are in place, and with Latu (who I think will be good but you never know), Shane appears to have turned on Ballard's light bulb.  Its one or two drafts away from getting that AFCCG roster.  So for me, fretting over whether or not there are mid level vets backing up the secondary for one milquetoast-ceiling season is like burning up the tires in a quarter mile drag race.  Using lots of energy that goes nowhere.   JMO.

 

 

[Solid84]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I thought this was a thread about Brents' injury and the assumption that the lack of a JAG vet backup CB was going to materially hinder the season.

It is, but the situation is essentially the same. Play Cross at Safety or a vet until Cross is ready or play Brents/Jones at CB or a vet until they are ready.

 

You seem work under the assumption anyone not an elite guy is a JAG. I disagree with that. Plenty of guys could've been had fairly cheaply this off season that would've been an upgrade over what we have currently.

 

I didn't want Ballard to spend everything on a top tier guy like Sneed. It would've been nice to have him, but the money probably would've been wasted, honestly. Get a solid veteran in that $3-8m range instead. Let Brents or Jones ride the bench and get a handful of snaps each game. Let them learn. To me it looks like Ballard believes you basically have to sacrifice one or more seasons in the name of development and I just plain disagree.

 

Quote

I don't care about floors.  I only care about ceiling's, and the goal, IMO, is to keeping building a roster that can go to the AFCCG.  Division winner ceiling does not spark much enthusiasm from me.

I do, because it's not always the ceiling that wins/losses the game. A team is no better than it's weakest link. You can't have elite players at every position and where you can't you need at solid veteran that provides a high floor.

 

Quote

Its why I've dogged Ballard for 7 years on roster construction.  Sure, you can get to the AFCCG with Rivers, Wentz, or Ryan, but you need dynamic players around them, primarily in the passing game.  The WRs, TEs, and LTs were bad, and the DEs and coverage LBers were not high quality either.  Now it seems the offensive pieces are in place, and with Latu (who I think will be good but you never know), Shane appears to have turned on Ballard's light bulb.  Its one or two drafts away from getting that AFCCG roster.  So for me, fretting over whether or not there are mid level vets backing up the secondary for one milquetoast-ceiling season is like burning up the tires in a quarter mile drag race.  Using lots of energy that goes nowhere.   JMO.

The process of Ballard drafting us to the top just haven't worked out, though? I mean, disregard the QB position, when were the Colts a serious contender roster-wise in Ballard's 8 years here? I think we've at best been an outsider/wildcard type team in 2020/2021. I wish Ballard would be more proactive in fixing holes instead letting the team sink.

[Superman]

14 hours ago, DavePSL said:

NO, I prefer Bill Polian when we were actually in the Superbowl and playoffs every year.

 

I think it's interesting to hear people complain about Ballard being stubborn and refusing to sign free agents, and then in the next breath pine for the days of Bill Polian. 

[GoColts8818]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think it's interesting to hear people complain about Ballard being stubborn and refusing to sign free agents, and then in the next breath pine for the days of Bill Polian. 

Yeah but are those the same people?  For example I don’t have a big problem with Ballard’s approach but I feel that way specifically because it’s how Polian operated.  

[shasta519]

4 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Hoping that Blackmon injury doesn’t have anything to do with bringing Harrison back.

 

My guess is that it has to do with game plan more than anything.

 

GB is starting a mobile and are likely expected to run the ball a lot. Need depth for that in case of injuries. Harrison adds some bulk at S and speed at LB.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Yeah but are those the same people?

 

All of them? I couldn't say. But this is from the poster I quoted:

 

 

 

So, some of them, for sure. And I don't post that to call DavePSL out. I just wonder if people actually remember Polian's methods as a GM, or if they just remember that the team was winning 12 games every year. 

[Superman]

38 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I didn't want Ballard to spend everything on a top tier guy like Sneed. It would've been nice to have him, but the money probably would've been wasted, honestly. Get a solid veteran in that $3-8m range instead. Let Brents or Jones ride the bench and get a handful of snaps each game. Let them learn. To me it looks like Ballard believes you basically have to sacrifice one or more seasons in the name of development and I just plain disagree.

 

I think the bolded would have been good. At the start of the offseason, it's what I expected. Lots of us wanted the same thing.

 

But I think your last sentence misses the point. The plan is not to sacrifice a season in the name of development. I think the team's viewpoint is a) the players they have are better than the fans/media believe they are, and b) the best way for them to reach their potential is for them to play.

 

Your plan would be to let the younger players compete with a veteran, the best players start, and then you have some insurance either way. Again, I think that's a good plan. I just don't agree with the underlying sentiment, which is basically that the young players aren't good enough. They might not be, but the staff's strategy requires giving them a chance. I get being nervous, but everyone's in full freakout mode -- We're screwed because Brents is hurt! Ballard is letting this season go to waste! -- and we haven't even played a game without him yet. He wasn't even great in the game he played. What if we're not screwed?

 

By the way, I don't think you're one of the main overreactors, so these comments aren't personal, but we all see it happening, here and elsewhere on the Internet. 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Solid84 said:

You seem work under the assumption anyone not an elite guy is a JAG. I disagree with that. Plenty of guys could've been had fairly cheaply this off season that would've been an upgrade over what we have currently.

I just think that Brents and Cross would advance their game from last season.  So the vet guy isn't going to be much help.  But again, the rest of the team isn't AFCCG quality yet, and most decent vets want a multi year contract.  The good ones who want a one year contract probably want to go to a better playoff team if they can.  Lots of things work against getting secondary help beyond Ballard being a stubborn *....from a guy who has not been a huge Ballard fan here.

 

1 hour ago, Solid84 said:

The process of Ballard drafting us to the top just haven't worked out, though? I mean, disregard the QB position, when were the Colts a serious contender roster-wise in Ballard's 8 years here? I think we've at best been an outsider/wildcard type team in 2020/2021. I wish Ballard would be more proactive in fixing holes instead letting the team sink.

IMO, the roster has never had a high ceiling.  Its been, at best, a Division winner/Wild card team since Ballard made his first decision here.  Yawn.

 

But the current team has a higher ceiling, IMO, but it's not where it needs to be right now.  The offense made big plays last week, but really failed to sustain any long drives.  What,,,32nd in time of possession despite being 15th in passing yards?  AR and the WRs still need to develop/gel before I get all concerned over adding a journeyman CB or S.  That's me.

[shasta519]

4 hours ago, Solid84 said:

• It would secure a higher floor of safety play, which we need.
• It would (currently) secure a higher ceiling, which we need.
• It would be easily affordable, even for Ballard.
• It would allow our young players to develop behind a proven veteran. There's no guarantee a rookie will turn out even good enough. If we spend 2-3 years giving a rookie reps and they don't turn out good enough we're back to square one and need another 2-3 years of development on a new player. That's not how you get to a high level of competition.

Secure a solid floor, then develop players behind that. My personal choice.

 

Edit: Look at Brents at CB. 2 years wasted because of injuries. We can't start him next season because he'll essentially be a year 3 rookie. So, Ballard's approach will likely be to draft another guy and hope he develops within 2-3 years. Fingers crossed it's not a bust or another injury-victim. 🤞

 

Also, it's not like there is some precedent for developing high-ceiling secondary players during Ballard's tenure:

 

Hooker - no

Quincy Wilson - no

Hairston - no

RYS - no

Tell - what happened to him?

Willis - a floor player

Blackmon - a floor player and the type you can get in FA for not much money

Rodgers - was on his way to a high ceiling if he didn't get suspended for gambling, but it was year 4 before he was a full-time starter

Davis - ?

Thomas -  was benched in his second season

Cross - still young so he has promise, but this is year 3 and we haven't seen the high ceiling

Brents - will have missed 3/4 of his first two years and his ceiling (assuming it existed) is in serious jeopardy

Rush - cut

Scott - injured

Jones - has been up and down, but as a R7 pick, I question his overall ceiling

 

Kenny Moore is probably the only example, but he reached his ceiling long ago. And teams can often find reasonably-priced good slot CBs in FA.

 

Some of it is due to injury, but it seems like they have struggled to build a floor for the secondary through the draft, much less a high ceiling.

 

So I tend to agree that FA can help the team. And we have a few examples of this too. Rhodes was a cheap FA and he raised the floor of the CB room. Gilmore was a bit more expensive, but he def raised the entire floor of the secondary. And McLeod was arguably the third-best defensive player on the team after they signed him in FA as a vet S.

 

[Solid84]

30 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think the bolded would have been good. At the start of the offseason, it's what I expected. Lots of us wanted the same thing.

 

But I think your last sentence misses the point. The plan is not to sacrifice a season in the name of development. I think the team's viewpoint is a) the players they have are better than the fans/media believe they are, and b) the best way for them to reach their potential is for them to play.

I would probably agree with that THIS season, but after last season Ballard basically said (paraphrasing) "yeah it was my decision to play the young guys". That tells me they "sacrificed" that season in the name of development. They willfully accepted a worse outcome to play rookies.

 

Ballard does what he thinks is right, you have to commend him for that, even if you disagree with some of what he does. I don't necessarily believe just throwing rookies in as starters is the right way to develop them. It's case by case, but a lot will benefit from sitting behind a veteran and learning the ropes.

 

Quote

Your plan would be to let the younger players compete with a veteran, the best players start, and then you have some insurance either way. Again, I think that's a good plan. I just don't agree with the underlying sentiment, which is basically that the young players aren't good enough. They might not be, but the staff's strategy requires giving them a chance.

Like above, it's case by case, but I think it's truly rare for a rookie to come out of college and be better than a solid veteran from the get go. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I think it's rare.

 

Also, you clearly can't have veterans on all positions with young promising rookies sitting behind everyone of them. There're only 53 roster spots after all. But a good example of what I'd like would be to have a veteran CB1 starting and Brents and Jones splitting reps on the other side for example. You're giving reps to rookies but you have a CB1 for the opponents WR1.

 

It's not really the same at Safety in my opinion, though, because deep safety/box safety are two different animals. Sorta like Slot CB/outside CB.

 

Quote

I get being nervous, but everyone's in full freakout mode -- We're screwed because Brents is hurt! Ballard is letting this season go to waste! -- and we haven't even played a game without him yet. He wasn't even great in the game he played. What if we're not screwed?

 

By the way, I don't think you're one of the main overreactors, so these comments aren't personal, but we all see it happening, here and elsewhere on the Internet. 

Absolutely, and I think it is what it is at this point. You play what you got, because anyone coming in has no chemistry with the team and it would likely take a good while before the benefit would show. I'm talking about BEFORE the season though. We should've had a solid vet already on the roster in my opinion.

[Solid84]

5 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

Also, it's not like there is some precedent for Ballard developing high-ceiling secondary players:

 

Hooker - no

Quincy Wilson - no

Hairston - no

RYS - no

Tell - what happened to him?

Willis - a floor player

Blackmon - a floor player and the type you can get in FA for not much money

Rodgers - was on his way to a high ceiling if he didn't get suspended for gambling, but it was year 4 before he was a full-time starter

Davis - ?

Thomas -  was benched in his second season

Cross - still young so he has promise, but this is year 3 and we haven't seen the high ceiling

Brents - will have missed 3/4 of his first two years and his ceiling (assuming it existed) is in serious jeopardy

Rush - cut

Scott - injured

Jones - has been up and down, but as a R7 pick, I question his overall ceiling

 

Kenny Moore is probably the only example, but he reached his ceiling long ago. And teams can often find reasonably-priced good slot CBs in FA.

 

Some of it is due to injury, but it seems like they have struggled to build a floor for the secondary through the draft, much less a high ceiling.

 

So I tend to agree that FA can help the team. And we have a few examples of this too. Rhodes was a cheap FA and he raised the floor of the CB room. Gilmore was a bit more expensive, but he def raised the entire floor of the secondary. And McLeod was arguably the third-best defensive player on the team after they signed him in FA as a vet S.

 

Yeah it's unfortunate the most succesful players we've had in the secondary have been FAs.

 

I do think Blackmon has developed into a good player. Not elite, but a good player. His biggest drawback really is the constant threat of injury.

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I would probably agree with that THIS season, but after last season Ballard basically said (paraphrasing) "yeah it was my decision to play the young guys". That tells me they "sacrificed" that season in the name of development. They willfully accepted a worse outcome to play rookies.

 

Ballard does what he thinks is right, you have to commend him for that, even if you disagree with some of what he does. I don't necessarily believe just throwing rookies in as starters is the right way to develop them. It's case by case, but a lot will benefit from sitting behind a veteran and learning the ropes.

 

I don't really agree about 2023. I think they wanted to play Flowers (who was promising after 2022) and Brents (a 2nd round pick). They didn't expect Rodgers to be gone, Flowers got hurt, and Brents missed half the season. I don't think the results from last year are a proper reflection of the plan.

 

But I do think it's fair to say they could have done more during the season to bolster the secondary, particularly after Flowers got hurt and Brents was struggling to say on the field. 

 

Quote

Absolutely, and I think it is what it is at this point. You play what you got, because anyone coming in has no chemistry with the team and it would likely take a good while before the benefit would show. I'm talking about BEFORE the season though. We should've had a solid vet already on the roster in my opinion.

 

That would have been a good plan, I agree. Right now, it seems like Flowers is the plan, and I'm holding my breath on that one because he didn't have a great preseason. But I want to see what actually happens.

[DavePSL]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

All of them? I couldn't say. But this is from the poster I quoted:

 

 

 

So, some of them, for sure. And I don't post that to call DavePSL out. I just wonder if people actually remember Polian's methods as a GM, or if they just remember that the team was winning 12 games every year. 

If Ballard's teams were winning 12 games a year, you wouldn't hear a peep out of me, FACT!!!

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, DavePSL said:

If Ballard's teams were winning 12 games a year, you wouldn't hear a peep out of me, FACT!!!

 

And I think that's totally reasonable. All we want is for the team to win. They haven't been winning, and it's fair to criticize the GM for that.

[shasta519]

53 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Yeah it's unfortunate the most succesful players we've had in the secondary have been FAs.

 

I do think Blackmon has developed into a good player. Not elite, but a good player. His biggest drawback really is the constant threat of injury.

 

I was hard on Blackmon when he was a FS because he got off to a hot start and was labeled as this ball-hawking playmaker at FS. Yet, he was rarely ever around the ball after that (until he moved to SS). He had 1 INT and 2 PDs over 2.5 seasons, with a lot of receptions, TDs and yards allowed. 

 

Back in the day, there were a few who thought he was much better suited as a SS. And to his credit, he seems to have found his footing as a solid player as a SS.

 

Still, as we saw this offseason, he's much more of a high-floor player that is readily available in FA (for not much money). But you need Blackmons on a team, especially if the alternative is a couple of unproven players like Nick Cross and Rodney Thomas as the starting S duo.

[hoosierhawk]

On 9/11/2024 at 3:52 AM, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I don’t know where you get I hate Ballard. It’s in the Colts  best interest to work because  the ramifications are bad. But I am not going to sit here not call out year after year where he is stubborn. He has built a competitive roster but doesn’t do enough up contend.  Until we get a few more really good players we will fall short. I think every position on this roster except the secondaryi is very very good and can be contenders with them. But the secondary is so week it’s going to cost us a few games where we will come up short of the playoffs again. That’s the frustration. Coming up just short because he fails at one position. One that a 2 year old could see needed fixed.

 

 

. 

Wow!! One would have thought he killed your dog. You hate him but then you say in the post that you think every position on this roster is very, very good with the exception of the secondary. Did the man you hate not have any input in putting the roster together you think is very. very good? Just asking.

[throwing BBZ]

2 hours ago, hoosierhawk said:

Wow!! One would have thought he killed your dog. You hate him but then you say in the post that you think every position on this roster is very, very good with the exception of the secondary. Did the man you hate not have any input in putting the roster together you think is very. very good? Just asking.

 

 Just 2 players away from being a SB favorite. Twilight Zone

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

28 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Just 2 players away from being a SB favorite. Twilight Zone

This team is very good in every spot but the secondary. We have the QB. But you can’t leave a big hole like at safety and corner. QB is the biggest battle and we don’t need one.

2 hours ago, hoosierhawk said:

Wow!! One would have thought he killed your dog. You hate him but then you say in the post that you think every position on this roster is very, very good with the exception of the secondary. Did the man you hate not have any input in putting the roster together you think is very. very good? Just asking.

I dont hate  Ballard. Colts need him to succeed because a new GM would be bad.his problem is he has a blind spot that ends up hurting  them not making the playoffs. This year it was even worse because he admitted they needed to add and did nothing.

[Moosejawcolt]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think it's interesting to hear people complain about Ballard being stubborn and refusing to sign free agents, and then in the next breath pine for the days of Bill Polian. 

Yes, but Polian depended on the draft to build a team and do a great job in that area. He went out of his comfort zone and signed Simon (DT) to big money and it bit him in the ...! He was gone shy after that. Ballard, year after year, has told us the importance of signing your own and building through the draft.  Eight years in and the results are just not there and we are way past the Luck excuse. I think Ballard seems like a likeable guy to those in the building , but I think deep down he is a little more arrogant than stubborn!

[holeymoley99]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I don't really agree about 2023. I think they wanted to play Flowers (who was promising after 2022) and Brents (a 2nd round pick). They didn't expect Rodgers to be gone, Flowers got hurt, and Brents missed half the season. I don't think the results from last year are a proper reflection of the plan.

 

But I do think it's fair to say they could have done more during the season to bolster the secondary, particularly after Flowers got hurt and Brents was struggling to say on the field. 

 

 

That would have been a good plan, I agree. Right now, it seems like Flowers is the plan, and I'm holding my breath on that one because he didn't have a great preseason. But I want to see what actually happens.

I didnt read it was Flowers replacing Brents instead of Womack who was designated for backup duties in week 1 while Flowers was inactive, If so Flowers may be getting healthier which is a good sign after a disastrous preseason. Hoping David Long is elevated he brings over 1,200 career snaps to the table.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Yes, but Polian depended on the draft to build a team and do a great job in that area. He went out of his comfort zone and signed Simon (DT) to big money and it bit him in the ...! He was gone shy after that. Ballard, year after year, has told us the importance of signing your own and building through the draft.  Eight years in and the results are just not there and we are way past the Luck excuse. I think Ballard seems like a likeable guy to those in the building , but I think deep down he is a little more arrogant than stubborn!

 

I don't understand the 'yes, but' of your response. Polian was more rigid and conservative as a team builder than Ballard is. He built through the draft, almost exclusively, and paid to keep his own. It's the same philosophy, except Ballard is less conservative when it comes to free agency. 

 

Aside from having Peyton Manning, what Polian did that Ballard has not -- so far -- is hit on critical positions. Polian's focus was on players that a) score touchdowns and protect the QB, and b) get turnovers or sacks. To his credit, Polian hit on WRs, TEs, RBs, DE, S, and kind of had some success at CB. (He did not draft Harrison, or Glenn, just to be clear.) His success at those positions -- plus having one of the best QBs of all time -- is what led to the team being good for several years in a row. 

 

During the Colts stretch of contention, he only made four significant moves for veteran players. Before the 2003 season, he signed Brandon Stokley, who had a nice run with us through the SB year. You already mentioned Corey Simon in 2005, which didn't go well. Before the 2006 season, he signed Adam Vinatieri. In October 2006, he traded a 2nd for Booger McFarland; McFarland had history with Dungy, otherwise that never would have happened. Other than those four moves -- three of which happened within a 14 month span -- I can't think of another notable move that Polian made for a veteran player. Four guys. From 1998 until 2011. (If I'm missing anyone, it has to be someone minor, in the late 90s.)

 

So when I say Polian built exclusively through the draft, take what you know about Ballard's team building philosophy, and multiply it by about five. And let's not talk about Bill Polian and arrogance... the guy gets a gold jacket, and everyone forgets how much of an absolute jerk he was known to be at times.

 

Polian > Ballard. That's not a discussion. But if you don't like Ballard's conservative free agent approach, let's not bring up Polian's methods.

 

34 minutes ago, holeymoley99 said:

I didnt read it was Flowers replacing Brents instead of Womack who was designated for backup duties in week 1 while Flowers was inactive, If so Flowers may be getting healthier which is a good sign after a disastrous preseason. Hoping David Long is elevated he brings over 1,200 career snaps to the table.

 

It could be Womack also, Lammons might get some of those reps as well. And they signed a new guy to the PS, but I doubt he'll play this week. 

 

I just assume that Flowers is next man up, but I could be wrong.

[holeymoley99]

31 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't understand the 'yes, but' of your response. Polian was more rigid and conservative as a team builder than Ballard is. He built through the draft, almost exclusively, and paid to keep his own. It's the same philosophy, except Ballard is less conservative when it comes to free agency. 

 

Aside from having Peyton Manning, what Polian did that Ballard has not -- so far -- is hit on critical positions. Polian's focus was on players that a) score touchdowns and protect the QB, and b) get turnovers or sacks. To his credit, Polian hit on WRs, TEs, RBs, DE, S, and kind of had some success at CB. (He did not draft Harrison, or Glenn, just to be clear.) His success at those positions -- plus having one of the best QBs of all time -- is what led to the team being good for several years in a row. 

 

During the Colts stretch of contention, he only made four significant moves for veteran players. Before the 2003 season, he signed Brandon Stokley, who had a nice run with us through the SB year. You already mentioned Corey Simon in 2005, which didn't go well. Before the 2006 season, he signed Adam Vinatieri. In October 2006, he traded a 2nd for Booger McFarland; McFarland had history with Dungy, otherwise that never would have happened. Other than those four moves -- three of which happened within a 14 month span -- I can't think of another notable move that Polian made for a veteran player. Four guys. From 1998 until 2011. (If I'm missing anyone, it has to be someone minor, in the late 90s.)

 

So when I say Polian built exclusively through the draft, take what you know about Ballard's team building philosophy, and multiply it by about five. And let's not talk about Bill Polian and arrogance... the guy gets a gold jacket, and everyone forgets how much of an absolute jerk he was known to be at times.

 

Polian > Ballard. That's not a discussion. But if you don't like Ballard's conservative free agent approach, let's not bring up Polian's methods.

 

 

It could be Womack also, Lammons might get some of those reps as well. And they signed a new guy to the PS, but I doubt he'll play this week. 

 

I just assume that Flowers is next man up, but I could be wrong.

 

[holeymoley99]

Just now, holeymoley99 said:

 

Oh ok, I believe unless it is heard differently Womack is next man up outside (His best position) while Lammons struggles outside and is more a slot (Where he still struggles but less).  Flowers not even being active shows the club doesnt feel he is back to pre    injury. I doubt they bring up Kelvin Joseph who they just signed but David Long who was signed 10 days ago may be ready and would be our most experienced Corner on the outside. This situation will be watched carefully and who ever does start has a chance to shine facing Malik Willis so big opportunity.

[DavePSL]

When you draft as good as Polian did, you dont need to lean on FA a lot. Polian drafted Manning, Edge, Wayne ,Freeny, Clark and  Mathis probably all HOFers and then he drafted Sanders who was on his way to the HOF before he got hurt and we picked late almost every year, That doesn't include the the solid role players like Cato June, Brackett, Dominic Rhodes, Ryan Diem, David Thorton, Jackson, Hayden Mike V, Hunter the punter all in hist first 7 years (drafts)  and those players won divisions and playoff games and a SB. Polian busted 1 draft in 2000............. Be careful comparing Ballard to Polian.....BTW, I do think Polian was an *but he built winners no matter where he went . Ballard doesn't even have a 500 record and has 1 playoff win in 7 years...Comparing the 2 GM's is a joke.

[Two_pound]

Polian had Peyton Manning. And also, using your logic, That would make the car salesman in Denver a better gm than Polian because Manning went to 2 Super Bowls in 4 short season's in Denver while he only went to 2 in 14 long season here in Indy. And by the way how many winning seasons did the broncos have in the 2 years before Manning got there and the 8 seasons since he left?

[Dark Superman]

This one is gonna sting until we get him back next season. JuJu Brents looked much better than I anticipated throughout camp and looked solid throughout week one. This sucks so bad for a young player who needed the onfield reps and experience this season.

[DavePSL]

On 9/12/2024 at 8:29 PM, Two_pound said:

Polian had Peyton Manning. And also, using your logic, That would make the car salesman in Denver a better gm than Polian because Manning went to 2 Super Bowls in 4 short season's in Denver while he only went to 2 in 14 long season here in Indy. And by the way how many winning seasons did the broncos have in the 2 years before Manning got there and the 8 seasons since he left?

No it doesn't make him better than Polian because he didn't draft all those HOF players and all those other solid role players I listed above. Polian also built the Bills into a powerhouse and an expansion team into a playoff contender.....BUT, I'll tell you who Elway is better than, CHRIS BALLARD...Elway has a winning record unlike Ballard. Elways has a playoff win without Manning and with Manning unlike Ballard who went and handpicked his QB's and has zero playoff wins with them. Elway took his team to 2 SB's with his free agent QB pickup and won a SB., Ballard has 1 playoff appearence with his FA quarterbacks that HE PICKED! Ballard would have to go to the next 2 SB's and win won of them just to match what Elway did but............Here's what Ballard is better than Elway at, being a used care salesman and BSing people......BTW, Don't try and twist my logic next time.

[Nate!]

45 minutes ago, DavePSL said:

No it doesn't make him better than Polian because he didn't draft all those HOF players and all those other solid role players I listed above. Polian also built the Bills into a powerhouse and an expansion team into a playoff contender.....BUT, I'll tell you who Elway is better than, CHRIS BALLARD...Elway has a winning record unlike Ballard. Elways has a playoff win without Manning and with Manning unlike Ballard who went and handpicked his QB's and has zero playoff wins with them. Elway took his team to 2 SB's with his free agent QB pickup and won a SB., Ballard has 1 playoff appearence with his FA quarterbacks that HE PICKED! Ballard would have to go to the next 2 SB's and win won of them just to match what Elway did but............Here's what Ballard is better than Elway at, being a used care salesman and BSing people......BTW, Don't try and twist my logic next time.

I assure you if Colts had an equivalent of Peyton Manning at that time join the team when Rivers did, we would’ve won playoff games.  

[Two_pound]

The car salesman's record in Denver is 64-99 without Peyton as his qb and 50-14 with Peyton as his qb. 8 losing seasons, 5 winning seasons and one at .500. That record without Peyton really jumps out at you does't it??(hahahaha) Ballard conversely has had 4 winning seasons and 3 losing seasons thus far. All being done with subpar qb play other than 2018 and 2020 with Luck and Rivers. Ballard took his qb in 2023, so now we will see how he does. If Richardson hits it big(and I think he will) we will dominate. BUT still have to outscore everyone like Manning and Luck did because we won't play any defense just like the past 52 years.

[nyyankeechris]

I'll tell you this.... we are going to find out real quick of the nessesity of wether or not we needed to sign a quality corner/defensive backfield option on the off-season today.

 

Real quick. 

[Solid84]

29 minutes ago, nyyankeechris said:

I'll tell you this.... we are going to find out real quick of the nessesity of wether or not we needed to sign a quality corner/defensive backfield option on the off-season today.

 

Real quick. 

I don't think Ballard is signing anyone unless we lose another DB.