POLL: fire ballard?

[Moosejawcolt]

3 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

 

That's a stretch... Take away pieces of their defense (they did) and they still have a good defense. Now do that same exercise with Mahomes... 

Its not a stretch, I believe. No doubt that Mahommes is a great qb, however, I feel that they always attribute the success of an NFL team to the QB. Do you think they win a Superbowl without that D? No way. The 1st 2 games of the season and Mahomme's has been okay. I am not discounting Mahommes value but I think that defense is a top 5 unit.  I feel that the Chiefs are now a complete team. Yes, they loss some pieces, but they kept the ones that are integral to the overall success of them as a unit. They have a great D line, all pro corner, solid LB play and great safeties

[RollerColt]

10 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Its not a stretch, I believe. No doubt that Mahommes is a great qb, however, I feel that they always attribute the success of an NFL team to the QB. Do you think they win a Superbowl without that D? No way. The 1st 2 games of the season and Mahomme's has been okay. I am not discounting Mahommes value but I think that defense is a top 5 unit.  I feel that the Chiefs are now a complete team. Yes, they loss some pieces, but they kept the ones that are integral to the overall success of them as a unit. They have a great D line, all pro corner, solid LB play and great safeties

 

More credit needs to be given to Steve Spagnuolo. He was the architect to the swarming ferocious man eating lion style defense of the Giants that took down Brady. Has head coaching experience from the Rams, and is the only coordinator I can think of that's ever won a ring with two separate teams. 

 

The man is a friggin' legend. 

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

I am not discounting Mahommes value

 

You are definitely discounting Mahomes' value, intentionally or not. 

[shasta519]

4 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I've grown pretty disillusioned with the Colts over the last few years. They keep disappointing. Ballard is at the heart of that, but that being the case I think we're stuck with him for at least a few years more.

 

Firing Ballard would likely mean the team gets blown up - new GM + straff, new HC + staff and new players across the board over several years. I would like to see what we have in AR before we go that route.

 

I thought next season (2025) would be a target for the Colts, but now I'm thinking that's just not realistic anymore. I don't think we will see it really clicking for AR until mid-way through next season. Also, it seems this roster has more holes than I thought possible at this stage. I'm not at all confident Ballard can fix the roster, but at least we should get a good idea of what we got in AR. I'm fine with that for a couple more years.

 

Disillusioned is a good word.

 

Even though it's meant to be entertainment and fun, I have found it to be increasingly unserious in a bad way. Not sure if that is the even the correct word, but it's more how I feel when I read or watch.

 

I think it started with the Wentz trade. But it has persisted. And while I thought Steichen would come in and change that, now I am not really sure what to think.

Replacing Ballard is a start, but I don't know if that's the end. I think this team needs a rebuild of sorts.

 

That's why I did not really care for this offseason. Committing the next 3 years to same group of players (many of which are getting older in football terms) seemed like more of the same of the past few years. 

 

Hopefully the ones who have struggled can bounce back and those who are hurt can get healthy, but we aren't too far from flirting with type of fall off we saw at the end of both Polian and Grigson.

[Superman]

4 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I thought next season (2025) would be a target for the Colts, but now I'm thinking that's just not realistic anymore. I don't think we will see it really clicking for AR until mid-way through next season. Also, it seems this roster has more holes than I thought possible at this stage. I'm not at all confident Ballard can fix the roster, but at least we should get a good idea of what we got in AR. I'm fine with that for a couple more years.

 

Jordan Love is a test case that gives me hope. (I do not mean to compare Love to Richardson, so I hope everyone understands that it's unnecessary to explain all the ways in which Love and Richardson are different...)

 

Love was a raw prospect, he sat behind Rodgers for three years, and in the rare situations when he played, he looked like a raw prospect who needed a lot of development. When he was finally the starter, he still struggled in a lot of ways, including with consistency from play to play, not to mention week to week. It wasn't until the second half of the season that it looked like the light really came on for him. No doubt Love benefited in probably unmeasurable ways from sitting behind Rodgers, but my main takeaway is that young QBs have to play and work through the mistakes to really get better. This is not a new idea or a brilliant discovery, it's just reinforcing what we already know. 

 

Richardson has started six games. In between, he suffered a pretty serious injury. He's young, and didn't have a lot of experience in college. He has a lot of things to work through. I don't know for sure what's a realistic time frame for his development, but it's much longer than six games. 

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

Disillusioned is a good word.

 

Even though it's meant to be entertainment and fun, I have found it to be increasingly unserious in a bad way. Not sure if that is the even the correct word, but it's more how I feel when I read or watch.

 

I think it started with the Wentz trade. But it has persisted. And while I thought Steichen would come in and change that, now I am not really sure what to think.

 

That's how I felt in early 2022. Most of that went away last season, but that feeling is coming back. 

[ColtStrong2013]

38 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Its not a stretch, I believe. No doubt that Mahommes is a great qb, however, I feel that they always attribute the success of an NFL team to the QB. Do you think they win a Superbowl without that D? No way. The 1st 2 games of the season and Mahomme's has been okay. I am not discounting Mahommes value but I think that defense is a top 5 unit.  I feel that the Chiefs are now a complete team. Yes, they loss some pieces, but they kept the ones that are integral to the overall success of them as a unit. They have a great D line, all pro corner, solid LB play and great safeties

They lost sneed who made a game winning play in the playoffs. Do I think his absence is going to be the difference keeping them from three-peating? No. Replace Mahomes 6 years ago with practically every qb in the league, and I would almost guarantee they don’t win 3 superbowls. Replace him with the next best realistic option for the Chiefs, and it’s not even a debate.  

[Solid84]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Jordan Love is a test case that gives me hope. (I do not mean to compare Love to Richardson, so I hope everyone understands that it's unnecessary to explain all the ways in which Love and Richardson are different...)

 

Love was a raw prospect, he sat behind Rodgers for three years, and in the rare situations when he played, he looked like a raw prospect who needed a lot of development. When he was finally the starter, he still struggled in a lot of ways, including with consistency from play to play, not to mention week to week. It wasn't until the second half of the season that it looked like the light really came on for him. No doubt Love benefited in probably unmeasurable ways from sitting behind Rodgers, but my main takeaway is that young QBs have to play and work through the mistakes to really get better. This is not a new idea or a brilliant discovery, it's just reinforcing what we already know. 

 

Richardson has started six games. In between, he suffered a pretty serious injury. He's young, and didn't have a lot of experience in college. He has a lot of things to work through. I don't know for sure what's a realistic time frame for his development, but it's much longer than six games. 

Completely agree. That's also why I'm backpedaling on my "2025 being "the year"" predictions. It's going to take a lot of time and probably also more time than most fans will like at this point. It is what it is. If AR works out it will have been worth it though.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Completely agree. That's also why I'm backpedaling on my "2025 being "the year"" predictions. It's going to take a lot of time and probably also more time than most fans will like at this point. It is what it is. If AR works out it will have been worth it though.

 

I've thought maybe 2025 could be 'the year,' but only IF Richardson has answered most/all of the questions we have about him as a QB. Even if he still has a lot of improvements to make, if he's good enough that we can compete with him every week, then I think that should still be in play.

 

But the meaning of 'the year' is what's interesting, because I don't think Ballard will ever make the kind of aggressive push that most fans want him to make. People who want him to do a version of what the Texans did this year are going to be disappointed, and I believe that whether Richardson is on track or not. Chris Ballard's version of 'the year' is what he did in 2020, and unlike then, we're not going into the 2025 offseason with $80m in cap space because he doubled down on his core in 2024. (I disagreed with that decision at the time, but I didn't expect it to look so bad, so soon.)

 

I said throughout the offseason, Ballard likely has at least until 2025. It would take a disastrous 2024 for that to change. We're two games in, so I'm not necessarily pulling the fire alarm just yet, but the team better wake up, or this year might be the kind of disaster that leads to major changes. 

[AKB]

28 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I've thought maybe 2025 could be 'the year,' but only IF Richardson has answered most/all of the questions we have about him as a QB. Even if he still has a lot of improvements to make, if he's good enough that we can compete with him every week, then I think that should still be in play.

 

But the meaning of 'the year' is what's interesting, because I don't think Ballard will ever make the kind of aggressive push that most fans want him to make. People who want him to do a version of what the Texans did this year are going to be disappointed, and I believe that whether Richardson is on track or not. Chris Ballard's version of 'the year' is what he did in 2020, and unlike then, we're not going into the 2025 offseason with $80m in cap space because he doubled down on his core in 2024. (I disagreed with that decision at the time, but I didn't expect it to look so bad, so soon.)

 

I said throughout the offseason, Ballard likely has at least until 2025. It would take a disastrous 2024 for that to change. We're two games in, so I'm not necessarily pulling the fire alarm just yet, but the team better wake up, or this year might be the kind of disaster that leads to major changes. 

i honestly think this might have been ballard's worst offseason when you sum it all up. the cut draft picks, resigning aging players who seem to be underperforming early on.  & the proof is in the pudding. Cross leads the NFL in tackles ( or did after the sunday slate, not sure if someone took his spot yet) not only is that ironic he's our best tackler, but the fact he's leading over our LB's goes to show the decline of Speed and Franklin IMO both have seen their best football

[AKB]

1 hour ago, lollygagger8 said:

It's the same stuff, different year (after year) 

 

Ballard really thinks he's smarter than everyone in the room, and sees himself as Polian reincarnated. Which he ain't. 

 

Maybe those "supplements" are seeping into his melon 

 

 

 

 

this has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've seen on this forum in a very long time hahahahah

[ColtStrong2013]

10 minutes ago, AKB said:

i honestly think this might have been ballard's worst offseason when you sum it all up. the cut draft picks, resigning aging players who seem to be underperforming early on.  & the proof is in the pudding. Cross leads the NFL in tackles ( or did after the sunday slate, not sure if someone took his spot yet) not only is that ironic he's our best tackler, but the fact he's leading over our LB's goes to show the decline of Speed and Franklin IMO both have seen their best football

I don’t think it was his best by any stretch, but to use the late round picks that were cut and not picked up on active rosters as a reasoning for it being his worst is head scratching. He has 6 active roster draft picks, and 4 of them are playing quality minutes. 

[AKB]

Just now, ColtStrong2013 said:

I don’t think it was his best by any stretch, but to use the late round picks that were cut and not picked up on active rosters as a reasoning for it being his worst is head scratching. He has 6 active roster draft picks, and 4 of them are playing quality minutes. 

yeah, some people have said that. But to me, it's a big deal when added to everything else, it counts for more. Especially considering his strategy involves developing and hitting in the later rounds. Combine that with an awful FA approach, paying non-premium positions, and us regressing at spots or seemingly having one issue after the next, it's comical, it's cyclical, and he is the root of the problem. 

[ColtStrong2013]

Just now, AKB said:

yeah, some people have said that. But to me, it's a big deal when added to everything else, it counts for more. Especially considering his strategy involves developing and hitting in the later rounds. Combine that with an awful FA approach, paying non-premium positions, and us regressing at spots or seemingly having one issue after the next, it's comical, it's cyclical, and he is the root of the problem. 

it doesn’t count more. It was a bad bottom part of the draft.  He has more draft picks on the active roster than most teams. Just because he had more picks than other teams shouldn’t be considered a bad draft. This could easily go down as his best over the next few seasons…  
 

Also I made a mistake, Laulu was picked up by the Raiders. 

[AKB]

you guys are gonna get my poll locked lol. chill

[ColtStrong2013]

1 minute ago, AKB said:

you guys are gonna get my poll locked lol. chill

 

I refuse to vote. Just like the real world voting. I’m staying square in the middle. 

[AKB]

Just now, ColtStrong2013 said:

it doesn’t count more. It was a bad bottom part of the draft.  He has more draft picks on the active roster than most teams. Just because he had more picks than other teams shouldn’t be considered a bad draft. This could easily go down as his best over the next few seasons…  
 

Also I made a mistake, Laulu was picked up by the Raiders. 

we can debate this point for point, I swear to you I've had this discussion with at least 2 others on here. the fact that he has the most active picks doesn't count for much when you think about guys like Ben Banagou and how he let him sit on the roster for an entire presidential term while producing nothing but cuddles with the turf in front of tackles. 

it absolutely counts, because his strategy has been to trade down, and find talent with more picks. the problem is that when it doesn't work, and you combine it with a poor FA, which he has almost every season, you end up with a middling roster, who appears to be regressing. 

that really sums up my thoughts on it to be honest, but each game, each season, each year we go by more and more * for tats start to stack vs. Ballard.

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, AKB said:

i honestly think this might have been ballard's worst offseason when you sum it all up. the cut draft picks, resigning aging players who seem to be underperforming early on.  & the proof is in the pudding. Cross leads the NFL in tackles ( or did after the sunday slate, not sure if someone took his spot yet) not only is that ironic he's our best tackler, but the fact he's leading over our LB's goes to show the decline of Speed and Franklin IMO both have seen their best football

 

I think some of the granular criticisms are off target. The cut draft picks is a good example, IMO. And at this point, I think 2022 was definitely worse, because the main area that was holding the team back was not addressed, and it's the area that undermined the team in general. Like I said earlier, I don't even think the secondary is the major issue right now, it's other stuff.

 

But to your point, the team had an opportunity to adjust the approach to team building and roster construction this offseason. A lot of people held out hope that Ballard + Steichen would be different than Ballard + Reich, in terms of positional focus, defensive gameplans, etc. We had a core of veterans that were coming up on free agency. We could have significantly revamped the roster. Instead, we doubled down and returned the same team. I understand the logic -- we looked like we were going in a good direction, and now we can support a young, talented QB. I just thought that was the opportunity to change the approach. 

 

The Eagles doubled down on their aging roster a couple seasons ago, because they were a SB caliber roster. The Colts were in a different category.

 

And again, I'm not giving up on this roster yet. I don't think Franklin, Speed, Grover, Pittman, etc., have forgotten how to play. I don't expect Buckner to be nursing injury all year; I hope Blackmon is able to play. I put the underwhelming start more on coaching than I do on roster construction. But I still think this roster has a limited ceiling, because even the players mentioned get back to their previous form, that's still probably not good enough to compete with the best teams in the AFC. 

[AKB]

Just now, Superman said:

 

I think some of the granular criticisms are off target. The cut draft picks is a good example, IMO. And at this point, I think 2022 was definitely worse, because the main area that was holding the team back was not addressed, and it's the area that undermined the team in general. Like I said earlier, I don't even think the secondary is the major issue right now, it's other stuff.

 

But to your point, the team had an opportunity to adjust the approach to team building and roster construction this offseason. A lot of people held out hope that Ballard + Steichen would be different than Ballard + Reich, in terms of positional focus, defensive gameplans, etc. We had a core of veterans that were coming up on free agency. We could have significantly revamped the roster. Instead, we doubled down and returned the same team. I understand the logic -- we looked like we were going in a good direction, and now we can support a young, talented QB. I just thought that was the opportunity to change the approach. 

 

The Eagles doubled down on their aging roster a couple seasons ago, because they were a SB caliber roster. The Colts were in a different category.

 

And again, I'm not giving up on this roster yet. I don't think Franklin, Speed, Grover, Pittman, etc., have forgotten how to play. I don't expect Buckner to be nursing injury all year; I hope Blackmon is able to play. I put the underwhelming start more on coaching than I do on roster construction. But I still think this roster has a limited ceiling, because even the players mentioned get back to their previous form, that's still probably not good enough to compete with the best teams in the AFC. 

there's nothing in your post that I really disagree with to be honest. it seems like even you have been more open about it on here. i would agree that cutting late draft picks isn't that big of a deal, but since we are talking about Ballard I think it does hold a bit more weight because of the surrounding strategy. But that's such a small point to disagree on, it really doesn't change the overall view. 

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

it doesn’t count more. It was a bad bottom part of the draft.  He has more draft picks on the active roster than most teams. Just because he had more picks than other teams shouldn’t be considered a bad draft. This could easily go down as his best over the next few seasons…  
 

Also I made a mistake, Laulu was picked up by the Raiders. 

 

The bolded is an excellent point, we all knew this draft was very top heavy, and weak in the later rounds. The Colts also had a lot of picks in the last two years, plus they re-signed a lot of their veteran core. We knew in March that there weren't a lot of roster spots in play.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, AKB said:

there's nothing in your post that I really disagree with to be honest. it seems like even you have been more open about it on here. i would agree that cutting late draft picks isn't that big of a deal, but since we are talking about Ballard I think it does hold a bit more weight because of the surrounding strategy. But that's such a small point to disagree on, it really doesn't change the overall view. 

 

I think if you were inclined to go back and read some of my posts about team decisions in March, you'd find that I was saying the same things then. Maybe with more hopeful optimism that the decisions would work out, and now we're two weeks into the season and it doesn't look good so far. And if you go back to November 2022 - January 2023, you'll see me questioning whether Ballard should remain the GM.

 

What I've disagreed with is the discourse about Ballard. I think many of the criticisms are overblown and unfair, and push back against them. That doesn't mean that I think all of his decisions are winners, or that I fully agree with his approach.

[AKB]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I think if you were inclined to go back and read some of my posts about team decisions in March, you'd find that I was saying the same things then. Maybe with more hopeful optimism that the decisions would work out, and now we're two weeks into the season and it doesn't look good so far. And if you go back to November 2022 - January 2023, you'll see me questioning whether Ballard should remain the GM.

 

What I've disagreed with is the discourse about Ballard. I think many of the criticisms are overblown and unfair, and push back against them. That doesn't mean that I think all of his decisions are winners, or that I fully agree with his approach.

To me, when I look at this draft class it has a rebuild all over it. it looks like the next stock of players to open cap space back up. 

 

Kelly for Bortolini

Smith or Fries for Gonclaves
AD - could argue that he is in the range of contract depth with Pittman to possibly replace him if it pans out that way 

I think Steichen's value of RB is not the same as Ballard's, evidenced over his career. I think the JT resigning probably had more to do with Ballard than Steichen - of course this is speculation, but if you look at his snap percentage from Sunday I think it's even confirmed there. Meaning guys like Hull, or any other 3-5th round back could step in and play most of steichens scheme. Look at the utilization of Goodson and Sermon. 

 

I think there is a fundamental change happening, this year honestly looks like a let em play, once again - which I've complained about time and time again about Ballard - like we have to wait and see what it is, then the next year is very similar, slight improvement, slight regression. With that being said, a lot of the contracts were not that long, but still seem a year over what they should've been based on how I see the roster mechanics. I think Blackmon on his 1 year should've been a continued theme for a lot of the guys we resigned. 

 

we can talk about Flowers, Baker Jr, Pryor, and Wentz, there are so many mismanaged positions, and it seems like when we find stability it only comes from a high draft pick, or a trade for a known player, which leaves all these other mediocre, or glaring holes in the roster. with buck out, our run defense reminded me of the AFC game vs the patriots. 

 

And isn't that what Ballard described as "the cupboards are bare"

 

[shasta519]

53 minutes ago, AKB said:

this has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've seen on this forum in a very long time hahahahah

 

Ballard: If they can't make me leave...I ain't leaving.

 

As somebody who is no longer in my prime years, I am not one to judge. But I didn't realize how much his appearance had changed.

[Moosejawcolt]

2 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

Disillusioned is a good word.

 

Even though it's meant to be entertainment and fun, I have found it to be increasingly unserious in a bad way. Not sure if that is the even the correct word, but it's more how I feel when I read or watch.

 

I think it started with the Wentz trade. But it has persisted. And while I thought Steichen would come in and change that, now I am not really sure what to think.

Replacing Ballard is a start, but I don't know if that's the end. I think this team needs a rebuild of sorts.

 

That's why I did not really care for this offseason. Committing the next 3 years to same group of players (many of which are getting older in football terms) seemed like more of the same of the past few years. 

 

Hopefully the ones who have struggled can bounce back and those who are hurt can get healthy, but we aren't too far from flirting with type of fall off we saw at the end of both Polian and Grigson.

The argument goes back and forth whether it is a talent issue or coaching with regards to the lack of success of this defense. I say it is both and will not get much better. I think Bradley's reputation has taken a huge hit. I truly believe that he has little faith in the linebackers, safeties, and corners ability to cover. Even in obvious scenarios where he should be playing 5 yards off, he plays 15. If I were him, I would do this. I would be ultra aggressive from here on out. Give  the media and fans what they want. Abandon the conservative approach and let it rip. I bet u this. If he took that approach, we would be saying, "Oh my God, the secondary  and  lienbackers can't cover at all". I would for one would love to see it lol. Teams are not even testing the secondary as Moses is parting the sea for the opposing rbs.

 

 

[Stephen]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Jordan Love is a test case that gives me hope. (I do not mean to compare Love to Richardson, so I hope everyone understands that it's unnecessary to explain all the ways in which Love and Richardson are different...)

 

Love was a raw prospect, he sat behind Rodgers for three years, and in the rare situations when he played, he looked like a raw prospect who needed a lot of development. When he was finally the starter, he still struggled in a lot of ways, including with consistency from play to play, not to mention week to week. It wasn't until the second half of the season that it looked like the light really came on for him. No doubt Love benefited in probably unmeasurable ways from sitting behind Rodgers, but my main takeaway is that young QBs have to play and work through the mistakes to really get better. This is not a new idea or a brilliant discovery, it's just reinforcing what we already know. 

 

Richardson has started six games. In between, he suffered a pretty serious injury. He's young, and didn't have a lot of experience in college. He has a lot of things to work through. I don't know for sure what's a realistic time frame for his development, but it's much longer than six games. 

If he didn't  have that injury last year I think he would be further along in his development 

[stitches]

My biggest Ballard criticisms:

 

- completely wrong focus in roster building. Building from the inside out. This is outdated way to think about the game. We are in 2024 not in 1984... 

- very outdated defensive scheme. A lot of people are focusing on Gus... and they were focusing on Eberflus previously. And even though I largely agree with those criticisms, I still think the main culprit here is Ballard's insistance on playing this type of defense. Because if it's not Eberflus it will be Gus... and if it's not Gus, it's going to be another clone that plays the same type of system that relies heavily on little to no disguising, rushing with 4, no blitzes, big cushions for the receivers to prevent deep shots, etc. The moment we fire Gus is the moment Ballard will hire another one of that tree of defensive coaches. Maybe some of the minutiae will get better... but the big picture will stay the same. 

- extremely passive in roster building. Overreliant on the draft. 

- overreliant on re-signing his own players. I think this is a huge blind spot for him. He tells you "you don't give C players B money", "FA overpays players", etc... but just lacks the self-awareness to catch himself making excuses for signing his own players... like they are the only ones in the free agency that don't get overpaid. In essence - he's not really against overpaying players... he's just overpaying the players of one team - his own. And this IMO is worse than the alternative, because this way you actually limit your pool of prospective players significantly. 

- this feels like a criticism I can ommit, but I think it's worth pointing out that he did the wrong thing 3 consecutive off-seasons when it came to the QB decision after Luck retired. Priority no. 1 when you don't have a franchise QB - find one. Best way to find a franchise QB - draft. Yeah, he finally drafted one, but it felt like he was running out of options and his owner had to nudge him towards that decision. 

- for as much resources and draft capital as he's been pushing into the trenches, this team gets regularly bulied on one or both sides of those trenches... 

[Superman]

27 minutes ago, AKB said:

To me, when I look at this draft class it has a rebuild all over it. it looks like the next stock of players to open cap space back up. 

 

Kelly for Bortolini

Smith or Fries for Gonclaves
AD - could argue that he is in the range of contract depth with Pittman to possibly replace him if it pans out that way 

I think Steichen's value of RB is not the same as Ballard's, evidenced over his career. I think the JT resigning probably had more to do with Ballard than Steichen - of course this is speculation, but if you look at his snap percentage from Sunday I think it's even confirmed there. Meaning guys like Hull, or any other 3-5th round back could step in and play most of steichens scheme. Look at the utilization of Goodson and Sermon. 

 

I think there is a fundamental change happening, this year honestly looks like a let em play, once again - which I've complained about time and time again about Ballard - like we have to wait and see what it is, then the next year is very similar, slight improvement, slight regression. With that being said, a lot of the contracts were not that long, but still seem a year over what they should've been based on how I see the roster mechanics. I think Blackmon on his 1 year should've been a continued theme for a lot of the guys we resigned. 

 

we can talk about Flowers, Baker Jr, Pryor, and Wentz, there are so many mismanaged positions, and it seems like when we find stability it only comes from a high draft pick, or a trade for a known player, which leaves all these other mediocre, or glaring holes in the roster. with buck out, our run defense reminded me of the AFC game vs the patriots. 

 

And isn't that what Ballard described as "the cupboards are bare"

 

The draft doesn't look like a rebuild draft to me. It looks like the draft of a team that believes they have a good core, and wants high ceiling players who can replace starters in the next year or two. If it were a rebuild year, I think maybe Kelly would have been moved, Pittman would have been allowed to walk, etc. 

 

I took Ballard at his word last year when he said he wanted to see what the team looked like before they decided to re-sign guys, like JT, Pittman, Moore, etc. And I think that's the only reason there was ever any question about JT, is because things looked so bad in 2022 that maybe the entire operation was poisoned, and it wouldn't make sense to re-sign players from that core if we were really a 4 win type of roster. If not for the chaos of 2022, I think JT would have been re-signed over the summer, just like Ballard has done with pretty much every one of his draft hits.

 

We can go back and forth on specific players over the years, we'll agree in some areas, disagree in others. I don't think the cupboards are bare, I don't think they ever have been. But I don't think that's the standard we should be talking about. We need to be able to compete with the contending teams, to be a top four team in the AFC. The gap between 'we have a nice roster with some good players, we can probably make the playoffs if things go well' and 'we're a true contender every year' is difficult to bridge, and there are lots of middling GMs that can put together a fringe playoff team, but not a true contender. 

[AKB]

has anyone done a comparison of Grigson's defenses and Ballards stat wise? I know we had a good run for 2-3 years with Flus, but I wonder what it averages out to with the first year under chuck, plus the bradley years

[stitches]

 

 

Gus saying his extremely conservative scheme might have gotten "too cute" with the few out of the ordinary blitzes he did...

 

These people just NEVER LEARN! They know one thing. And they keep doing it AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. 

[AKB]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

The draft doesn't look like a rebuild draft to me. It looks like the draft of a team that believes they have a good core, and wants high ceiling players who can replace starters in the next year or two. If it were a rebuild year, I think maybe Kelly would have been moved, Pittman would have been allowed to walk, etc. 

 

I took Ballard at his word last year when he said he wanted to see what the team looked like before they decided to re-sign guys, like JT, Pittman, Moore, etc. And I think that's the only reason there was ever any question about JT, is because things looked so bad in 2022 that maybe the entire operation was poisoned, and it wouldn't make sense to re-sign players from that core if we were really a 4 win type of roster. If not for the chaos of 2022, I think JT would have been re-signed over the summer, just like Ballard has done with pretty much every one of his draft hits.

 

We can go back and forth on specific players over the years, we'll agree in some areas, disagree in others. I don't think the cupboards are bare, I don't think they ever have been. But I don't think that's the standard we should be talking about. We need to be able to compete with the contending teams, to be a top four team in the AFC. The gap between 'we have a nice roster with some good players, we can probably make the playoffs if things go well' and 'we're a true contender every year' is difficult to bridge, and there are lots of middling GMs that can put together a fringe playoff team, but not a true contender. 

I agree with almost all of what you are saying, and I might have chosen a poor word in a rebuild, but I do think he drafted some key replacements. 

Bortolini & Gonclaves are obvious ones to me. We will have to see over the next year or two, and I suppose by definition that is in line with your statement about drafting while feeling you have a core. However, I do think we are intending to cut down on Oline salaries over the next year or so. 

 

[Superman]

Just now, AKB said:

Bortolini & Gonclaves are obvious ones to me. We will have to see over the next year or two, and I suppose by definition that is in line with your statement about drafting while feeling you have a core. However, I do think we are intending to cut down on Oline salaries over the next year or so. 

 

I think it will be even more expensive in 2025, because we'll go from having a highly paid center and a rookie contract LT to having a rookie contract center and a highly paid LT. Raimann is eligible after this season. Goncalves seems more like a guard than a tackle, so I don't think anything happens at RT. I think we'll still have 3 highly paid OL in 2025. Maybe we find a less expensive option at RT, but that's probably not until 2026.

[AKB]

Just now, Superman said:

 

I think it will be even more expensive in 2025, because we'll go from having a highly paid center and a rookie contract LT to having a rookie contract center and a highly paid LT. Raimann is eligible after this season. Goncalves seems more like a guard than a tackle, so I don't think anything happens at RT. I think we'll still have 3 highly paid OL in 2025. Maybe we find a less expensive option at RT, but that's probably not until 2026.

I wanted us to Trade Kelly at different points.  Smith when healthy is probably the 2nd best RT in the league, and you're right Gonclaves could easily play RG over RT, but we saw them do it with Smith 

Calling for a future trade of Smith might be a bit far out atm, especially considering all the holes elsewhere. But we've seen teams do it in the past like the Dolphins with Tunsil. 

 

I have a feeling Smith gets moved on from, as well as Kelly. and yes I understand that sounds far out. So that makes paid LT, LG, rookie contract C, Fries (resigned) Gonclvaves RT

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, stitches said:

My biggest Ballard criticisms:

 

- completely wrong focus in roster building. Building from the inside out. This is outdated way to think about the game. We are in 2024 not in 1984... 

 

I don't think you're necessarily wrong, I just have an unconventional belief about building from the inside out. Everyone focuses on tackle play, which is important, but I think the interior of the OL is more important. You can help pass protection with scheme and QB play, and it's easier to help on the outside than it is to double a great DT. You can't run the ball if you're not good inside. For these reasons, I think OL play should be built from the inside out. 

 

And for similar reasons, I value good DT play more than most people. 

 

That said, you can't be deficient at positions where good teams are getting playmaking -- Edge, CB, WR, etc. 

 

Quote

- very outdated defensive scheme. A lot of people are focusing on Gus... and they were focusing on Eberflus previously. And even though I largely agree with those criticisms, I still think the main culprit here is Ballard's insistance on playing this type of defense. Because if it's not Eberflus it will be Gus... and if it's not Gus, it's going to be another clone that plays the same type of system that relies heavily on little to no disguising, rushing with 4, no blitzes, big cushions for the receivers to prevent deep shots, etc. The moment we fire Gus is the moment Ballard will hire another one of that tree of defensive coaches. Maybe some of the minutiae will get better... but the big picture will stay the same. 

 

I also disagree here. The problem isn't the scheme, in the fundamental sense. It's the rigidity with which the scheme is employed. Everyone plays a ton of zone, that's the new NFL. The Jets only blitz slightly more than the Colts (granted, their personnel is better across the board). The problem is that we're passive and predictable, and while this same scheme can be played more aggression and disguise, Bradley won't/can't do it. And I don't think that's because Ballard is micromanaging his gameplans.

 

There are some limitations to this scheme, and I agree that any DC that comes in with Ballard as GM will be running a similar defense, so the limitations will probably persist. But I don't agree that this scheme itself requires the uninventive passiveness and rigidity that we deal with now.

[stitches]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think you're necessarily wrong, I just have an unconventional belief about building from the inside out. Everyone focuses on tackle play, which is important, but I think the interior of the OL is more important. You can help pass protection with scheme and QB play, and it's easier to help on the outside than it is to double a great DT. You can't run the ball if you're not good inside. For these reasons, I think OL play should be built from the inside out. 

 

And for similar reasons, I value good DT play more than most people. 

 

That said, you can't be deficient at positions where good teams are getting playmaking -- Edge, CB, WR, etc. 

Pretty much every position that is directly involved in the passing game or in defending the pass should be of the highest priority. And because this is a league with limited resources(salary cap), when you have to sacrifice somewhere you should be sacrificing the parts of the game that have to do with the run game/defending the run. This is especially true if you are unable to secure good run game or run defense after spending metric # ton of assets on defending the run. 

 

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I also disagree here. The problem isn't the scheme, in the fundamental sense. It's the rigidity with which the scheme is employed. Everyone plays a ton of zone, that's the new NFL. The Jets only blitz slightly more than the Colts (granted, their personnel is better across the board). The problem is that we're passive and predictable, and while this same scheme can be played more aggression and disguise, Bradley won't/can't do it. And I don't think that's because Ballard is micromanaging his gameplans.

 

There are some limitations to this scheme, and I agree that any DC that comes in with Ballard as GM will be running a similar defense, so the limitations will probably persist. But I don't agree that this scheme itself requires the uninventive passiveness and rigidity that we deal with now.

I think the rigidity goes with the overall defensive philosophy and in what Ballard wants as a whole from his defense. That's why the rigidity and predictability were similar under Eberflus and Gus, despite them actually having slight differences in what scheme they were employing at the back end(Tampa 2 vs heavy cover 3). This is not the defining characteristic that Ballard is searching for - the defining characteristic is what directly leads to the predictability - he wants to limit deep shots he wants to play zone and he wants to rush with 4. This right there, from the start cuts off a ton of variability and unpredictability you can introduce. 

 

Let me ask you like this - who is the defensive coach you think has those two attributes - he runs a defense that fits in Ballard's mold... AND plays inventive, unpredictable, variable defense? Who do you want as our DC under Ballard?

[Two_pound]

Remember how excited most of us on here were after annilating the no talent-bottom 5 roster steelers with our number 3 and 4 running backs last season(yes I remember the negative nannies pessimism also). Since that game we are 1-4 and the no talent steelers are 5-0. I guess you just don't embarrass the Rooney's in a football game. Something else interesting so far this season we have scored more points than the steelers and given up fewer points than the big bad cowplops, and yet we suck according to some of you on here.

[Superman]

25 minutes ago, stitches said:

Pretty much every position that is directly involved in the passing game or in defending the pass should be of the highest priority. And because this is a league with limited resources(salary cap), when you have to sacrifice somewhere you should be sacrificing the parts of the game that have to do with the run game/defending the run. This is especially true if you are unable to secure good run game or run defense after spending metric # ton of assets on defending the run. 

 

I think it's a mischaracterization to say that building from the inside out isn't prioritizing the passing game, on either side of the ball. The most devastating pass rush comes from the interior. And while I think a lot of what Bradley has said recently is crazy, I fully agree with him when he says that you have to earn the right to rush the passer by stopping the run. Sunday's game is a prime example. 

 

I agree that if you spend a bunch of assets on OL/DL, you have to be good in those areas, and so far, we are not. The OL looked better against the Packers, but then Steichen didn't lean on them in the way you'd expect if that's the strength of the roster. 

 

Quote

I think the rigidity goes with the overall defensive philosophy and in what Ballard wants as a whole from his defense. That's why the rigidity and predictability were similar under Eberflus and Gus, despite them actually having slight differences in what scheme they were employing at the back end(Tampa 2 vs heavy cover 3). This is not the defining characteristic that Ballard is searching for - the defining characteristic is what directly leads to the predictability - he wants to limit deep shots he wants to play zone and he wants to rush with 4. This right there, from the start cuts off a ton of variability and unpredictability you can introduce. 

 

 

The bolded are the basic limitations I was talking about, so I agree there. But I think there's a significant range that we can explore within those limitations, and Bradley won't do it. His method of limiting deep shots is playing ten yards off on the outside, letting WRs hit top speed before the CB can even turn to run, and then giving up deep shots anyway. Let the corners engage within five yards, disrupt the timing, give the pass rush a chance to influence the play, and still use your safeties over the top. It's a simple adjustment, and it doesn't require lockdown corners to be successful. We won't even try. 

 

There are other versions of this scheme around the league. Bradley's is, by far, the most conservative and rigid, when you consider the refusal to blitz and the heavy reliance on two main coverages.

 

And yeah, there are similarities between Bradley and Eberflus, but Eberflus went down with the ship when we played the Ravens, letting Lamar do whatever he wanted, refusing to blitz, even though everyone knows Lamar struggles with the blitz and excels against four man rush. Bradley blitzed like his life depended on it, and had success. So the idea that rigidity and predictability are a prerequisite doesn't hold up, IMO. 

 

Quote

Let me ask you like this - who is the defensive coach you think has those two attributes - he runs a defense that fits in Ballard's mold... AND plays inventive, unpredictable, variable defense? Who do you want as our DC under Ballard?

 

I'm not fully qualified to answer that. If I had sat in interviews with DC candidates in 2022 or HC candidates in 2023, then I could tell you what ideas they had for defensive scheme, and what they might do. If forced to answer, I'd point to Robert Saleh -- he's actually from the Bradley/LOB tree, plays zone, not blitz heavy, but also not passive and rigid. But again, he's had some really good players in the secondary.

 

I think it's noteworthy, though, that the Colts interviewed guys like Chris Harris and Jim Schwartz for DC in 2022, both guys who presumably would play more variable defenses. And then in 2023, they interviewed Aaron Glenn, Ejiro Eviro, Raheem Morris, for HC, who would probably have brought something different defensively. Why even go down that path if Ballard is completely closed off to the idea of something other than Gus Bradley's ultra passive and predictable approach? (And side point, I think Reich's connection to Bradley, and Steichen's connection to Bradley, play a bigger role in his being hired and retained so far, than most people will admit.)

[stitches]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think it's a mischaracterization to say that building from the inside out isn't prioritizing the passing game, on either side of the ball. The most devastating pass rush comes from the interior. And while I think a lot of what Bradley has said recently is crazy, I fully agree with him when he says that you have to earn the right to rush the passer by stopping the run. Sunday's game is a prime example. 

 

I agree that if you spend a bunch of assets on OL/DL, you have to be good in those areas, and so far, we are not. The OL looked better against the Packers, but then Steichen didn't lean on them in the way you'd expect if that's the strength of the roster. 

Just to be clear - I didn't mean to imply that you cannot get pass-rush from the interior or that you shouldn't put high value on it. It's just that usually the interior guys on DL have big responsibilities in the run game. But yeah - if you can get a top tier pass-rusher from the interior - I don't mind spending big resources on him. This goes with any position really, but just in general the trend has been that the interior positions impact the run more than the pass. BUT... if lets say... you can get a super impactful FS who is able to cover single high sideline to sideline(Earl Thomas, Ed Reed types)... sure go and spend the resources on them... if you can get an amazing LB who can carry the best TEs or even most WRs in coverage ... sure ... spend big on him. If you can get the best pass-catching RB in the league and this helps your passing game.... sure... spend big on him. But you do NOT spend on run stuffing DTs(Stewart, Davis, Bryan), you don't spend on run stuffing LBs(Franklin), you don't spend on RBs who you have to take off the field when you have to pass rather than use them or hell, even use them as disguise/misdirection(Taylor). You get it... Just in general the positions that impact the passing game the most are usually - DEs, CBs, S on D and QB, WR on O.  

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

The bolded are the basic limitations I was talking about, so I agree there. But I think there's a significant range that we can explore within those limitations, and Bradley won't do it. His method of limiting deep shots is playing ten yards off on the outside, letting WRs hit top speed before the CB can even turn to run, and then giving up deep shots anyway. Let the corners engage within five yards, disrupt the timing, give the pass rush a chance to influence the play, and still use your safeties over the top. It's a simple adjustment, and it doesn't require lockdown corners to be successful. We won't even try.

 

And yeah, there are similarities between Bradley and Eberflus, but Eberflus went down with the ship when we played the Ravens, letting Lamar do whatever he wanted, refusing to blitz, even though everyone knows Lamar struggles with the blitz and excels against four man rush. Bradley blitzed like his life depended on it, and had success. So the idea that rigidity and predictability are a prerequisite doesn't hold up, IMO. 

 

 

I'm not fully qualified to answer that. If I had sat in interviews with DC candidates in 2022 or HC candidates in 2023, then I could tell you what ideas they had for defensive scheme, and what they might do. If forced to answer, I'd point to Robert Saleh -- he's actually from the Bradley/LOB tree, plays zone, not blitz heavy, but also not passive and rigid. But again, he's had some really good players in the secondary.

 

I think it's noteworthy, though, that the Colts interviewed guys like Chris Harris and Jim Schwartz for DC in 2022, both guys who presumably would play more variable defenses. And then in 2023, they interviewed Aaron Glenn, Ejiro Eviro, Raheem Morris, for HC, who would probably have brought something different defensively. Why even go down that path if Ballard is completely closed off to the idea of something other than Gus Bradley's ultra passive and predictable approach? (And side point, I think Reich's connection to Bradley, and Steichen's connection to Bradley, play a bigger role in his being hired and retained so far, than most people will admit.)

 

There are other versions of this scheme around the league. Bradley's is, by far, the most conservative and rigid, when you consider the refusal to blitz and the heavy reliance on two main coverages.

Remember that interview Ballard had with Wink Martindale in 2023? Remember what Martindale shared after that interview. I was wondering what he meant when he said "Some things they wanted to do that I didn’t want to do"( https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/wink-martindale-some-things-colts-wanted-to-do-that-i-didnt-want-to-do ). I think Ballard wanted him to limit his defense to what he(Ballard) likes too. I think he probably did the same witht he other defensive coaches too... No way for me to be sure, but not much else makes sense about what exactly the Colts wanted Martindale to do that he didn't... especially in the areas he would have had big say in. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

Just in general the positions that impact the passing game the most are usually - DEs, CBs, S on D and QB, WR on O.  

 

Generally agreed, but the point I'm trying to make is that I think interior OL/DL have more impact on the passing game than they get credit for. Particularly a great 3T, there's just no answer for that player. But yeah, we're talking about real game changers at those positions, not just stacking up multiple JAGs and saying 'we're solid at DT.' 

 

7 minutes ago, stitches said:

Remember that interview Ballard had with Wink Martindale in 2022? Remember what Martindale shared after that interview. I was wondering what he meant when he said "Some things they wanted to do that I didn’t want to do"( https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/wink-martindale-some-things-colts-wanted-to-do-that-i-didnt-want-to-do ). I think Ballard wanted him to limit his defense to what he(Ballard) likes too. I think he probably did the same witht he other defensive coaches too... No way for me to be sure, but not much else makes sense about what exactly the Colts wanted Martindale to do that he didn't... especially in the areas he would have had big say in. 

 

I guess we'll never know. But to be clear, the Colts interviewed Martindale for HC in 2023, not DC in 2022.

 

And to my point, why would Chris 'We Run Cover 3 Zone' Ballard interview a defensive coach who runs a 3-4 as a potential HC? Why would he interview him twice? I can't imagine that Ballard thought Martindale would completely change his defensive philosophy, which is one of the reasons his candidacy never made sense to me in the first place. I guess you see it the other way, and I get that, especially in light of that quote. But since the job was HC and not DC, that could have been about something other than defensive philosophy. 

[Solid84]

16 minutes ago, stitches said:

Remember that interview Ballard had with Wink Martindale in 2023? Remember what Martindale shared after that interview. I was wondering what he meant when he said "Some things they wanted to do that I didn’t want to do"( https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/wink-martindale-some-things-colts-wanted-to-do-that-i-didnt-want-to-do ). I think Ballard wanted him to limit his defense to what he(Ballard) likes too. I think he probably did the same witht he other defensive coaches too... No way for me to be sure, but not much else makes sense about what exactly the Colts wanted Martindale to do that he didn't... especially in the areas he would have had big say in. 

I bet they wanted him to stand on the sideline in nothing but a pink silk g-string! Good for Wink Martindale refusing a demand like that. Good for us too!

[stitches]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Generally agreed, but the point I'm trying to make is that I think interior OL/DL have more impact on the passing game than they get credit for. Particularly a great 3T, there's just no answer for that player. But yeah, we're talking about real game changers at those positions, not just stacking up multiple JAGs and saying 'we're solid at DT.' 

 

 

I guess we'll never know. But to be clear, the Colts interviewed Martindale for HC in 2023, not DC in 2022.

 

And to my point, why would Chris 'We Run Cover 3 Zone' Ballard interview a defensive coach who runs a 3-4 as a potential HC? Why would he interview him twice? I can't imagine that Ballard thought Martindale would completely change his defensive philosophy, which is one of the reasons his candidacy never made sense to me in the first place. I guess you see it the other way, and I get that, especially in light of that quote. But since the job was HC and not DC, that could have been about something other than defensive philosophy. 

Yah, I corrected the above and it was in 2023 for the HC position, but still... as a defensive coach, Martindale would have the biggest say and possibly the biggest disagreements with Ballard precisely on the side of the ball he has expertise in. At least that's my assumption. Of course, I could be wrong here and we will never know. I don't even know what would be big enough disagreement that Martindale would even mention it later after not getting the job.