Time to evaluate

[ColtsGermany]

1 minute ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

The issue wasn’t rivers. What a perfect opportunity to take love and sit him a year.  This isn’t about AR because I think he will be just fine. It’s about Ballard continually delaying a QB in the draft. We actually had the capital to trade the  13 and get Buck and get love.

Or do it like that...sure.

 

It was just one example of what he could've/should've done to solve the qb situation. There are certainly more.

But what he tried and did since 2020 in drafts and FA was just not good enough, if at all . That was my point.

And if I think about it now, it's really questionable how he could survive as our GM till the point to draft AR. (And that is ehat bought him at least 2 more years back then)

I remember Love had a lot of fans on the forum back then.

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I agree with all you wrote Supe, but wanted to comment on this especially, because I think it's some teams need to take notice of:

I think it's especially worth talking about in comparison to the Lions.

 

Usually when a team does a 180 and become contenders it's because they landed their franchise QB. The Lions already had that with Stafford and arguable traded to a worse QB in Goff. They just play complementary football and "hide" his deficiencies with better play in other areas.

 

I think the Lions are playing a style of football teams will be moving towards in the near future - more rushing. This exploits the 2-deep defense most teams are playing now.

 

Holmes and Campbell have done a tremendous job in Detroit.

 

Yeah, these styles of play are cyclical. Teams won't stay in 2 deep forever, not if they're getting blasted in the run game. So just like it has before, the trends will swing back and forth on offense and defense. What you want is an offense that can do both.

 

And the Lions have a QB who learned how to be an efficient passer under McVay, but didn't have the poise and playmaking to beat good defenses. He's gotten better in some areas, but his limitations are mostly the same, which we saw when they played the Texans a couple weeks ago. But the Lions don't need him to be a gunslinger, especially not against teams like the Colts. If they're in a 'gotta have it' situation against a good team, Goff might not be able to raise his level of play, but I guess we'll see.

[stitches]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I view most things very differently than moose, and I have no agenda.

 

But this comparison should make it abundantly clear that the Colts don't have the right pieces to compete with the class of the NFL. We're not even close. Yeah, we can put together a competitive game, maybe squeeze out a win vs a good team every once in a while, but the best teams are completely out of our league. The Lions weren't even at their best yesterday, but they cruised to victory because they were more disciplined. So they're not just more talented than the Colts, they're also better coached.

 

And the fact that it's the Lions is especially noteworthy, because they've been awful most of my life, even when Stafford was an all-star caliber QB. Four years into the Holmes/Campbell era, they're legit SB contenders. They won 3 games in 2021. In 2023, they won their division, and two playoff games. They have a pretty good QB who looks like an MVP candidate, despite his obvious limitations, because they play complementary football. They aren't just good; they're dominant in every phase of the game. 

 

The Colts are so far behind the best teams in the league, and it's not just because we don't have a QB. Acknowledging the vast chasm between the Colts and the Lions is a wake up call. We talk about the Colts going 9-8 last season, being a dropped pass away from winning the division, setting a franchise record in sacks, etc., a bunch of things that we hope are indications that the arrow is pointed in the right direction for this team. But if you zoom out and look at the big picture, the Colts have been struggling to tread water for a while now. And comparing them with a team that was drowning, and is now on their way to the mountain top, and they've done it in 4 years, should be eye-opening.

 

I don't know why people don't get it and keep clinging to this mediocrity we've been experiencing for what is now close to a decade under Ballard. It's like people suffer from Stockholm syndrome or something. It just all feel comfy... he gives you just enough hits to keep the hope alive without doing any particular thing at a great level. Something like 22-23 different teams have won their divisions since Ballard became our GM. Teams build contenders with regularity within 2-3-4 years of changing their GM or QB. But no, Ballard needs MORE TIME! Give him a decade... hell... we are about to end a decade in a couple of years. Would he be able to do it within another decade?

 

And if he actually had shown some growth... some adjustments... some learning from past mistakes... maybe you could rationalize that things will be different this time. But no, he actually proudly is emphasizing again and again that he believes what he believes and if it gets him fired, so be it. Well... I think the time for it to be so is fast approaching. 

 

We are not close to the top of the league and we have never really been close at any time during Ballard's tenure. The Luck Colts looked promising but even they got destroyed by the Chiefs. And that's with Luck playing some of his best football. 

 

And BTW I want to point out that for the majority of the game yesterday... it wasn't even the QB that was failing this team. It was the rest of the roster he's been building for 8 years. 

[Solid84]

There's plenty to evaluate on...

[stitches]

19 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Yeah I remember we were talking about him this offseason. Would've been a great Colt.

Now don't get me wrong. He plays in a different scheme with different responsibilities, but the point still stands. Especially when you consider you didn't even need to extend Franklin. He could have just played on his contract.... and you could have used that money for Luvu... or for a TE... or for a CB or for a S... 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

It’s no wonder AR was having trouble adjusting to being a pro. Because there are no players in that locker room that set a standard for him to look up to.

[John Waylon]

6 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

I don't know why people don't get it and keep clinging to this mediocrity we've been experiencing for what is now close to a decade under Ballard. It's like people suffer from Stockholm syndrome or something. It just all feel comfy... he gives you just enough hits to keep the hope alive without doing any particular thing at a great level. Something like 22-23 different teams have won their divisions since Ballard became our GM. Teams build contenders with regularity within 2-3-4 years of changing their GM or QB. But no, Ballard needs MORE TIME! Give him a decade... hell... we are about to end a decade in a couple of years. Would he be able to do it within another decade?

 

And if he actually had shown some growth... some adjustments... some learning from past mistakes... maybe you could rationalize that things will be different this time. But no, he actually proudly is emphasizing again and again that he believes what he believes and if it gets him fired, so be it. Well... I think the time for it to be so is fast approaching. 

 

We are not close to the top of the league and we have never really been close at any time during Ballard's tenure. The Luck Colts looked promising but even they got destroyed by the Chiefs. And that's with Luck playing some of his best football. 

 

And BTW I want to point out that for the majority of the game yesterday... it wasn't even the QB that was failing this team. It was the rest of the roster he's been building for 8 years. 

But but but! We could have a worse GM, the grass isn’t always greener on the other side! 
 

Never mind the dead, brown grass under our feet already, think about how much worse it could be!

[Solid84]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

Now don't get me wrong. He plays in a different scheme with different responsibilities, but the point still stands. Especially when you consider you didn't even need to extend Franklin. He could have just played on his contract.... and you could have used that money for Luvu... or for a TE... or for a CB or for a S... 

I don't even think the future is too bright under Ballard unless AR REALLY takes off. Next season we have a $54m-ish cap space, but that's with 37 players under contract. Paye, Dayo, Speed, Blackmon, Fries and more are looking for new deals. Raimann and Smith will be looking for extensions. Where's the improvement going to come from?

[ColtStrong2013]

4 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

But but but! We could have a worse GM, the grass isn’t always greener on the other side! 
 

Never mind the dead, brown grass under our feet already, think about how much worse it could be!

you keep blabbing about dead grass but I don’t see a dead team. If that’s the case for your perspective, what is the definition? I’d like to know, so that I can point out teams that are beyond dead… or wait, is that a thing? 

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Solid84 said:

I don't even think the future is too bright under Ballard unless AR REALLY takes off. Next season we have a $54m-ish cap space, but that's with 37 players under contract. Paye, Dayo, Speed, Blackmon, Fries and more are looking for new deals. Raimann and Smith will be looking for extensions. Where's the improvement going to come from?

True change is within; leave the outside as is.

- Dalai Lama.... also Chris Ballard probably 

[ColtStrong2013]

Just now, stitches said:

True change is within; leave the outside as is.

- Dalai Lama.... also Chris Ballard probably 

Gunga-Galunga

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Hot take. Linebackers are the weakest part of colts defense 

[ColtStrong2013]

Just now, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Hot take. Linebackers are the weakest part of colts defense 

not hot at all. Pretty reasonable I’d say. They sure are loud though.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 minute ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

not hot at all. Pretty reasonable I’d say. They sure are loud though.

It’s not the secondary that burns colts on 3rd and longs. It’s always tackling from the LB.

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, stitches said:

I don't know why people don't get it and keep clinging to this mediocrity we've been experiencing for what is now close to a decade under Ballard. It's like people suffer from Stockholm syndrome or something.

 

I don't think that's it. I think lines were drawn early on Ballard, and since then, there's been several years of bad faith arguments against him without acknowledgment of the circumstances. And because of that, it's been reasonable to defend Ballard for a long time, IMO. And it's been easy to do so, because the arguments against him sucked. Some of them still do.

 

But I think the case can now be made against Ballard without any of the bad faith (IMO) arguments. I'm saying the same things here about the Lions that I said about the Niners a couple years ago. 

 

We've been hoping for little wins here and there, and the bar needs to be much higher. And the big problem with Ballard is that he doubled down on this roster construction in 2024, which means he thought we had the right players and were good enough to compete with good teams. Clearly that's not the case, as this latest game makes obvious. Zach Hicks has a tweet that was posted in this thread already, which I think is extreme in the way it's presented, but the point is inarguable. We were bad in 2022, and our roster is essentially the same. We had a new coach and a rookie QB, we could have reworked the entire roster, and it would have been fair to give Ballard the benefit of the doubt for the 5-6 win team that we probably would have had in 2023. Same thing in 2024. But apparently the decision makers thought we had the right guys in place. It's a systemic failure, and it's not just about a couple of decisions that haven't worked out well. 

 

I say all of this as someone who actually likes Ballard, thinks he does some things really well, I think his entire tenure has been undermined by things that are mostly out of his control, and I think most of the Ballard criticism is crazy and unreasonable. But bottom line, he has failed at building a roster that's good enough to contend, and I don't think he's going to get any better at that fundamental responsibility.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Look at what bills did at end of season last year. Everyone thought what are they doing rebuilding when you have Allen in his prime. Turned out change was good. They are a better team this year. Unfortunately Ballard has never learned that lesson. The good thing here if Ballard is gone the team isn’t in salary cap trouble. So you would think they should be able to make some minor changes without rebuilding completely.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Basically Bills just retooled a few things and are now a better team. If colts change GM hopefully this is what we see with colts and not a total tear down. I still think there are good pieces to work with here.  Colts have the young QB who looks promising and still have some talent on this team and are not in salary cap trouble. This should be a retooling instead of a total tear down.

[smittywerb]

22 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

I know the season is not over and they still may go on a run of horrible teams and make playoffs. However, they just played an elite team. Based on their play and performance today and against play off teams. What changes do u want to see in terms of coaching, front office and players? To me, I have seen enough and making the playoffs can not mask what changes need to occur after the off season. 

Coaching:  I want playcalling duties taken away from Shane.  If JBC can call plays, let him call them.  Let Shane focus on the system and the play designs while JBC handle playcalling.  Defensively, I’m willing to see what Gus can do with better players.  Despite the stats, he’s shown he’s willing to adjust and make changes and lately the defense has not been the problem.  I’m not a fan of the system, but imo Gus has earned the right to show what he can do with better talent.

 

Front Office:  Fire Ballard.  I do not trust him to put together a good team around AR.  We do have a solid base but when it comes to making moves to move the needle, idk if Ballard will make them.  I’d be ok with moving him to some sort of scouting/draft evaluator role but I doubt he’d want that and I’m sure other teams will want his services as a GM. 
 

Players:  As said above, I think we have a solid base.  But we need more players that move the needle and will push us over the top.  Definitely need an upgrade with the TEs, would like us to build a RB room that Shane can use.  Other than that, build depth and make key signings to acquire playmakers.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Shane seems engaged on the sideline despite calling plays. It’s not like Reich where he seemed disinterested in what was going on.  I don’t know if Jim Bob is good at it either. It could help Shane next season to call in a proven OC to call plays though 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Basically Bills just retooled a few things and are now a better team. If colts change GM hopefully this is what we see with colts and not a total tear down. I still think there are good pieces to work with here.  Colts have the young QB who looks promising and still have some talent on this team and are not in salary cap trouble. This should be a retooling instead of a total tear down.

 

I don't think the Bills are a good example. Their roster is worse on paper, because they had to let a bunch of good players go, and they replaced them with young players (something Colts fans hate when the Colts try to do it).

 

The biggest difference for the Bills is that they aren't turning the ball over like they did last year. They were tied for 7th last year, with 28 turnovers. This year, they have 7 turnovers through 11 games, and they're on pace for 11 turnovers all season. Less than half. Turnovers is probably the biggest variance stat, which is why you shouldn't panic when a good QB suddenly has a rash of turnovers. In fact, I saw a stat a couple weeks ago that showed Josh Allen was on pace for more turnover worthy plays this season than last year. 

 

The Colts probably need to completely revamp the defense. But that's not a four year project, like some people make it seem. It just requires a more aggressive approach than Ballard is willing to take.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think the Bills are a good example. Their roster is worse on paper, because they had to let a bunch of good players go, and they replaced them with young players (something Colts fans hate when the Colts try to do it).

 

The biggest difference for the Bills is that they aren't turning the ball over like they did last year. They were tied for 7th last year, with 28 turnovers. This year, they have 7 turnovers through 11 games, and they're on pace for 11 turnovers all season. Less than half. Turnovers is probably the biggest variance stat, which is why you shouldn't panic when a good QB suddenly has a rash of turnovers. In fact, I saw a stat a couple weeks ago that showed Josh Allen was on pace for more turnover worthy plays this season than last year. 

 

The Colts probably need to completely revamp the defense. But that's not a four year project, like some people make it seem. It just requires a more aggressive approach than Ballard is willing to take.

I think the defense still has things to work with on the dline. But yes you are right in some spots. Secondary and linebackers needed a total revamp.  But to me that’s more of a retooling than a tear down. Usually teams need a QB and are in cap trouble when they total rebuild. At least colts are not in salary cap trouble. So that retooling shouldn’t be too hard. Just those positions on the defense and a TE. Keep drafting Oline too. You would hope that having a young promising QB would attract a young GM. I am sure that would be something Irsay wants in a GM. Then you have to find a GM that likes Steichen. It wouldn’t be good to change offensive mind for AR. Then the question comes down to what does AR show next season as he gets closer to his 5th year. Will colts want to start over with a rookie contact or does he ball out where there is no question he is the guy. Having a young promising QB should make the process for a young GM easier.

[stitches]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think that's it. I think lines were drawn early on Ballard, and since then, there's been several years of bad faith arguments against him without acknowledgment of the circumstances. And because of that, it's been reasonable to defend Ballard for a long time, IMO. And it's been easy to do so, because the arguments against him sucked. Some of them still do.

 

But I think the case can now be made against Ballard without any of the bad faith (IMO) arguments. I'm saying the same things here about the Lions that I said about the Niners a couple years ago. 

 

We've been hoping for little wins here and there, and the bar needs to be much higher. And the big problem with Ballard is that he doubled down on this roster construction in 2024, which means he thought we had the right players and were good enough to compete with good teams. Clearly that's not the case, as this latest game makes obvious. Zach Hicks has a tweet that was posted in this thread already, which I think is extreme in the way it's presented, but the point is inarguable. We were bad in 2022, and our roster is essentially the same. We had a new coach and a rookie QB, we could have reworked the entire roster, and it would have been fair to give Ballard the benefit of the doubt for the 5-6 win team that we probably would have had in 2023. Same thing in 2024. But apparently the decision makers thought we had the right guys in place. It's a systemic failure, and it's not just about a couple of decisions that haven't worked out well. 

 

I say all of this as someone who actually likes Ballard, thinks he does some things really well, I think his entire tenure has been undermined by things that are mostly out of his control, and I think most of the Ballard criticism is crazy and unreasonable. But bottom line, he has failed at building a roster that's good enough to contend, and I don't think he's going to get any better at that fundamental responsibility.

I have given props to Ballard for some of the things he does well (in my opinion), but I have had serious problems with his philosophy and his vision since the very beginning. And some of the issues with the way he thinks about his team have crystalized over the years(they were not immediately visible, at least not to me) and combined with my other criticism of him have taken me to the point of just not trusting him with this team's roster construction. 

 

Some people have been saying that if AR pans out Ballard should keep his job. And if he does(quick enough) he probably will... But imo the problem with Ballard is much deeper. Even if we had top tier QB(AR pans out), this roster will still suffer with misallocation of resources. The positions he values will still be the same. The defense he wants us to play will still be the same and will likely keep picking apples from the same tree for the DC position. He will still overvalue his own players and unironically tell us that "Players get overpaid in FA" not realizing he, too is overpaying players ... just he's artificially limiting his pool of players to almost exclusively his own players. "We like our players"... How perfect of an encapsulation of the problems of team construction.(Especially when "our players" that we like so much haven't done jack % in this league)...

 

And even if we get close to contention(probably would need an MVP type season from the QB), he still will likely refuse to go all in and focus the resources of this team into a window of contention, while other teams will have the upper hand. 

 

I just don't think he's the guy to give us the best chance to contend. And this is with or without a franchise QB.

[John Waylon]

55 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

you keep blabbing about dead grass but I don’t see a dead team. If that’s the case for your perspective, what is the definition? I’d like to know, so that I can point out teams that are beyond dead… or wait, is that a thing? 

You don’t see a dead team? We just went into a game knowing 7 days in advance that we wouldn’t win and didn’t have a shot to win short of the opposing team melting down or staying at home. 
 

It only took your man crush 8 years to get us to this point. Just 8 short years. At this rate we’ll be ready to compete for division titles regularly by….

 

2047. 

 

Keep chopping wood. 🥰🥰🥰

[kevingt]

25 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Shane seems engaged on the sideline despite calling plays. It’s not like Reich where he seemed disinterested in what was going on.  I don’t know if Jim Bob is good at it either. It could help Shane next season to call in a proven OC to call plays though 

Shane may be engaged but he is a cruddy play-caller. To me that's one of the biggest problems with the Colts - the play-calling. Completely predictable and vanilla. No creativity, nothing unusual or unexpected. Just boringgggg and ineffective. I'm not a big fan of Jim Bob or Gus. I think the coaching staff is the biggest weakness the Colts have.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

3 minutes ago, kevingt said:

Shane may be engaged but he is a cruddy play-caller. To me that's one of the biggest problems with the Colts - the play-calling. Completely predictable and vanilla. No creativity, nothing unusual or unexpected. Just boringgggg and ineffective. I'm not a big fan of Jim Bob or Gus. I think the coaching staff is the biggest weakness the Colts have.

His play calling was just fine yesterday. Players didn’t execute. Then with all the penalties second half it limits the play calling 

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, stitches said:

I have given props to Ballard for some of the things he does well (in my opinion), but I have had serious problems with his philosophy and his vision since the very beginning. And some of the issues with the way he thinks about his team have crystalized over the years(they were not immediately visible, at least not to me) and combined with my other criticism of him have taken me to the point of just not trusting him with this team's roster construction. 

 

Some people have been saying that if AR pans out Ballard should keep his job. And if he does(quick enough) he probably will... But imo the problem with Ballard is much deeper. Even if we had top tier QB(AR pans out), this roster will still suffer with misallocation of resources. The positions he values will still be the same. The defense he wants us to play will still be the same and will likely keep picking apples from the same tree for the DC position. He will still overvalue his own players and unironically tell us that "Players get overpaid in FA" not realizing he, too is overpaying players ... just he's artificially limiting his pool of players to almost exclusively his own players. "We like our players"... How perfect of an encapsulation of the problems of team construction.(Especially when "our players" that we like so much haven't done jack % in this league)...

 

And even if we get close to contention(probably would need an MVP type season from the QB), he still will likely refuse to go all in and focus the resources of this team into a window of contention, while other teams will have the upper hand. 

 

I just don't think he's the guy to give us the best chance to contend. And this is with or without a franchise QB.

 

My comment about bad faith arguments against Ballard wasn't directed at you. I don't agree with all of your arguments against him, but I don't think they're made in bad faith. (I do think the 'we like our players' meme is petty and misses the point, but that's a different conversation.)

 

Ultimately, we agree that he's probably not the guy to build a real contender, with or without a franchise QB.

[ColtStrong2013]

9 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

You don’t see a dead team? We just went into a game knowing 7 days in advance that we wouldn’t win and didn’t have a shot to win short of the opposing team melting down or staying at home. 
 

It only took your man crush 8 years to get us to this point. Just 8 short years. At this rate we’ll be ready to compete for division titles regularly by….

 

2047. 

 

Keep chopping wood. 🥰🥰🥰

Did we lose 52-6? Did we lose 52-14? Did we lose 47-9?

 

that’s what the lions did to the Jags, Titans, and Cowboys… 

 

Team isn’t dead. Far from it. I see a team that is decimated on the O-line, but still fighting and trying to improve and a defense that kept the best offense in the league under their average, even with a miserable DC and lacking playmakers. He’s not my man, lol, you buffoon. It makes zero difference to me at the end of the day who our GM is. If the power to be wants a change, I hope we are 4 years away from contender standing like the Lions have been. 

[John Waylon]

1 minute ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Did we lose 52-6? Did we lose 52-14? Did we lose 47-9?

 

that’s what the lions did to the Jags, Titans, and Cowboys… 

 

Team isn’t dead. Far from it. I see a team that is decimated on the O-line, but still fighting and trying to improve and a defense that kept the best offense in the league under their average, even with a miserable DC and lacking playmakers. He’s not my man, lol, you buffoon. It makes zero difference to me at the end of the day who our GM is. If the power to be wants a change, I hope we are 4 years away from contender standing like the Lions have been. 

And most of the rest of us see the same old listless, middle of the road or worse team it always has been under Ballard. Rinse and repeat. The only thing we like more than our guys is hovering below .500. 

[stitches]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

My comment about bad faith arguments against Ballard wasn't directed at you. I don't agree with all of your arguments against him, but I don't think they're made in bad faith. (I do think the 'we like our players' meme is petty and misses the point, but that's a different conversation.)

 

Ultimately, we agree that he's probably not the guy to build a real contender, with or without a franchise QB.

I disagree it's petty, especially when he's used it multiple times to justify keeping mediocre(at best) units mediocre. Sure, it's a bit of a simplification, but IMO the context it's missing pales in comparison to the weight of the point it's actually hitting. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on that one.

[John Waylon]

4 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Did we lose 52-6? Did we lose 52-14? Did we lose 47-9?

 

that’s what the lions did to the Jags, Titans, and Cowboys… 

 

Team isn’t dead. Far from it. I see a team that is decimated on the O-line, but still fighting and trying to improve and a defense that kept the best offense in the league under their average, even with a miserable DC and lacking playmakers. He’s not my man, lol, you buffoon. It makes zero difference to me at the end of the day who our GM is. If the power to be wants a change, I hope we are 4 years away from contender standing like the Lions have been. 

Oh, and by the way, we lost to the Jags, we beat the titans by a FG, and the cowboys beat the Commanders yesterday. Your straw man argument is invalid. 

[Superman]

Just now, stitches said:

I disagree it's petty, especially when he's used it multiple times to justify keeping mediocre(at best) units mediocre. Sure, it's a bit of a simplification, but IMO the context it's missing pales in comparison to the weight of the point it's actually hitting.

 

It's completely petty. It's something every GM says, in a variety of contexts.

 

When it was said about Raimann, who struggled as a first year player, people hammered Ballard for it. Since then, Raimann has looked like a legit NFL LT. When it was said about Nick Cross, people talked about all the mediocre veterans that we should have signed; Quandre Diggs is on IR, Justin Simmons is forgettable in Atlanta, Cross is playing reasonably well. Alec Pierce, the meltdown when we didn't trade for Sneed... I could go on... When this is said about young players, the subtext is 'we're not going to give up on this guy just because the fans want us to replace him after half a season with a name they recognize.' 

 

When it was said about veteran players, the subtext was 'we think our core is pretty good, and we want to keep it together because we think we can be even better if the QB is good enough.' I disagreed with that approach, but I understand the reasoning. And it's not 'we correctly value our own players, while everyone else overvalues other players.' (That's the one argument you make that I think is way off base.) The reasoning is 'we're not paying the free agency premium because we keep our own guys, and we generally sign them before they go to market.' And that's historically sound reasoning. We can find outliers in free agency, but the majority of players who leave in free agency underperform, and the majority of teams that are aggressive in free agency underperform.

 

The reason I disagreed with the Colts 2024 approach is not because I wanted them to replace Franklin with Luvu (although I would have been fine with that). It's because they doubled down on a veteran defensive core that had already reached its ceiling, when it was pretty obvious that the core wasn't good enough. The defense needed to be rebuilt, and whatever floor we maintain by keeping this core together is not high enough to begin with, so holding on to it is a waste of resources.

 

'We like our guys' has been meme-ified because it's easy, low hanging fruit. But drafting and developing your own players, then keeping them (especially if you extend them a year early), is actually sound team building strategy, and we all know it.

[richard pallo]

Last year Shane impressed me right out of the gate when he cut that running back after his fumble at the goal line I believe in the first game.  I might not have all the details right but he made a statement by cutting that player.  I think he should do the same thing tomorrow and cut Olgetree.   Ballard should then go and sign a TE off a practice squad to replace him.  Our TE room is awful.  Would he be a big loss?  I don’t think so.  Bring in someone else.   If they really want to awaken the team cut Speed as well and sign a linebacker off a practice squad.  He’s going to be a FA anyway and we have Stuard and probably Carlise after the bye.  I have a strong feeling those two moves would light a fire under a few behinds.   It’s not too late to hold players accountable for their performances.  It could be the wake up call that they need.  Just my 2c.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Last year Shane impressed me right out of the gate when he cut that running back after his fumble at the goal line I believe in the first game.  I might not have all the details right but he made a statement by cutting that player.  I think he should do the same thing tomorrow and cut Olgetree.   Ballard should then go and sign a TE off a practice squad to replace him.  Our TE room is awful.  Would he be a big loss?  I don’t think so.  Bring in someone else.   If they really want to awaken the team cut Speed as well and sign a linebacker off a practice squad.  He’s going to be a FA anyway and we have Stuard and probably Carlise after the bye.  I have a strong feeling those two moves would light a fire under a few behinds.   It’s not too late to hold players accountable for their performances.  It could be the wake up call that they need.  Just my 2c.

 

I don't necessarily agree that anyone needs to be cut, especially just for dropping a pass.

 

But to your actual point, one of the reporters had a tweet that basically called out all the mistakes that were made yesterday, including Nelson's penalties. Then he asked why it is that only Richardson can be benched, but no one else. 'We have a standard...' how come that standard isn't enforced with other players?

 

And I think that's a good point, one that was mentioned when Richardson was initially benched. 

[smittywerb]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't necessarily agree that anyone needs to be cut, especially just for dropping a pass.

 

But to your actual point, one of the reporters had a tweet that basically called out all the mistakes that were made yesterday, including Nelson's penalties. Then he asked why it is that only Richardson can be benched, but no one else. 'We have a standard...' how come that standard isn't enforced with other players?

 

And I think that's a good point, one that was mentioned when Richardson was initially benched. 

 

And I think that’s where ARs frustration is coming from.  He was clearly frustrated with what was happening around him, and I don’t blame him.  I feel like AR has the same sentiment as most of us from the beginning, “it’s not just me/him”.  Dude got dragged through the mud for weeks, only to come back and have the same stat line he’s had all year minus the sacks and turnovers.  

[stitches]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's completely petty. It's something every GM says, in a variety of contexts.

 

When it was said about Raimann, who struggled as a first year player, people hammered Ballard for it. Since then, Raimann has looked like a legit NFL LT. When it was said about Nick Cross, people talked about all the mediocre veterans that we should have signed; Quandre Diggs is on IR, Justin Simmons is forgettable in Atlanta, Cross is playing reasonably well. Alec Pierce, the meltdown when we didn't trade for Sneed... I could go on... When this is said about young players, the subtext is 'we're not going to give up on this guy just because the fans want us to replace him after half a season with a name they recognize.' 

 

When it was said about veteran players, the subtext was 'we think our core is pretty good, and we want to keep it together because we think we can be even better if the QB is good enough.' I disagreed with that approach, but I understand the reasoning. And it's not 'we correctly value our own players, while everyone else overvalues other players.' (That's the one argument you make that I think is way off base.) The reasoning is 'we're not paying the free agency premium because we keep our own guys, and we generally sign them before they go to market.' And that's historically sound reasoning. We can find outliers in free agency, but the majority of players who leave in free agency underperform, and the majority of teams that are aggressive in free agency underperform.

 

The reason I disagreed with the Colts 2024 approach is not because I wanted them to replace Franklin with Luvu (although I would have been fine with that). It's because they doubled down on a veteran defensive core that had already reached its ceiling, when it was pretty obvious that the core wasn't good enough. The defense needed to be rebuilt, and whatever floor we maintain by keeping this core together is not high enough to begin with, so holding on to it is a waste of resources.

 

'We like our guys' has been meme-ified because it's easy, low hanging fruit. But drafting and developing your own players, then keeping them (especially if you extend them a year early), is actually sound team building strategy, and we all know it.

That's the problem though. He always does it. He always says it to justify doing nothing in FA. Other GMs might say it as point of support for their players, not as a direct answer to questions about doing nothing else to improve the roster. You can point the the 3 times it has worked but I can point to the 20 times he's justified keeping the status quo of a bad or mediocre part of the roster. This is defining characteristic of Ballard's Colts. Yes, it worked with Raimann(because it actually looked like he had some potential after year 1), but he did the same with the WRs 3 times before this year, he did the same with the OL the year they fell apart, he did he same with the secondary in 22(?) and later admitted he made a mistake. He did the same with the DEs for the Kemoko, Banogu, Lewis group and later admitted it was a mistake. This year it was about the DB and TE units...

 

Yes, drafting and developing young players is key for success, I just don't agree that to do that you have to ignore FA or other avenues for improving your roster. You can do both. You can try to develop your young DBs and at the same time get some vets to help the young group and to raise the floor for performance of that group.

[John Waylon]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

'We like our guys' has been meme-ified because it's easy, low hanging fruit. But drafting and developing your own players, then keeping them (especially if you extend them a year early), is actually sound team building strategy, and we all know it.

Sure. 
 

…

 

Unless a GM can’t actually do that very well. You know, kinda like we’re suffering through right now. 
 

It’s not a low hanging fruit. It’s an open, painstaking reminder of exactly why this team is in the cruddy shape it’s in, and why it won’t ever be anything other than this while we’ve got a guy who likes his guys as much as Ballard claims he does. 
 

It’s just more doubling down on what already isn’t getting us anywhere. 

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, smittywerb said:

 

And I think that’s where ARs frustration is coming from.  He was clearly frustrated with what was happening around him, and I don’t blame him.  I feel like AR has the same sentiment as most of us from the beginning, “it’s not just me/him”.  Dude got dragged through the mud for weeks, only to come back and have the same stat line he’s had all year minus the sacks and turnovers.  

 

Anyone would have been frustrated yesterday. Richardson was laying his body on the line from the opening kickoff. Every big play got called back by penalty. The OL was bad. Guys are dropping passes. AD was freelancing on third down. Etc. But one guy gets benched, and the coach says it's to give the team the best chance to win, while fans/media eat it up.

 

I'm not saying Richardson doesn't need to play better, but he's the raw, inexperienced QB, and he got thrown under the bus. 

[Solid84]

21 minutes ago, Superman said:

'We like our guys' has been meme-ified because it's easy, low hanging fruit. But drafting and developing your own players, then keeping them (especially if you extend them a year early), is actually sound team building strategy, and we all know it.

Where it gets to fit the meme though is with players like Turay, Banogu, Campbell, Granson, Johnson and more...

 

Hanging on to players that haven't shown anything has ALWAYS been a thing with Ballard and it's probably why people react too fast with guys like Raimann, Cross and Pierce.

 

It's also why Ballard (rightfully) gets roasted for his FA approach, because we know we have to watch 3 years of a player bombing, just for Ballard to draft a new 3 year project...

[Solid84]

7 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

Sure. 
 

…

 

Unless a GM can’t actually do that very well. You know, kinda like we’re suffering through right now. 
 

It’s not a low hanging fruit. It’s an open, painstaking reminder of exactly why this team is in the cruddy shape it’s in, and why it won’t ever be anything other than this while we’ve got a guy who likes his guys as much as Ballard claims he does. 
 

It’s just more doubling down on what already isn’t getting us anywhere. 

To be fair, I don't think Ballard misses at a higher rate than so many other GMs. Where he fails is not supplementing misses with FAs.

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I view most things very differently than moose, and I have no agenda.

 

But this comparison should make it abundantly clear that the Colts don't have the right pieces to compete with the class of the NFL. We're not even close. Yeah, we can put together a competitive game, maybe squeeze out a win vs a good team every once in a while, but the best teams are completely out of our league. The Lions weren't even at their best yesterday, but they cruised to victory because they were more disciplined. So they're not just more talented than the Colts, they're also better coached.

 

And the fact that it's the Lions is especially noteworthy, because they've been awful most of my life, even when Stafford was an all-star caliber QB. Four years into the Holmes/Campbell era, they're legit SB contenders. They won 3 games in 2021. In 2023, they won their division, and two playoff games. They have a pretty good QB who looks like an MVP candidate, despite his obvious limitations, because they play complementary football. They aren't just good; they're dominant in every phase of the game. 

 

The Colts are so far behind the best teams in the league, and it's not just because we don't have a QB. Acknowledging the vast chasm between the Colts and the Lions is a wake up call. We talk about the Colts going 9-8 last season, being a dropped pass away from winning the division, setting a franchise record in sacks, etc., a bunch of things that we hope are indications that the arrow is pointed in the right direction for this team. But if you zoom out and look at the big picture, the Colts have been struggling to tread water for a while now. And comparing them with a team that was drowning, and is now on their way to the mountain top, and they've done it in 4 years, should be eye-opening.

A wake up call?   Seriously?   
 

What happened yesterday that surprised you?   For me the answer is nothing.  The Colts offense looked a little disappointing to me because the OL isn’t good enough to hold up against a good defense like the Lions have.  Not because Goncalves and Bortolini aren’t good.   So again, not surprised. 
 

I think the Colts will lose against Denver and win the rest of the games.  I’ll be disappointed if they don’t.  THAT for me would be the eye opener of 2024.  Not a loss to the best team in football.   

And even if we do that, I’ll try not to argue that we were close again to the playoffs, as we were last year.  I’d recognize we win against the weaker teams, lose against the better teams.   But at least we’d be 9-8 which I’d debate with anyone is reason enough NOT to burn things down.
 

I think it’s been over-reaction Monday around here.  Lots of angry fans making too much out of too little.   
 

I’m sorry I can’t find more to have in common with you.   I’ve found that happening with you and I a lot this year.  I thought that when I answered your post about the future by pointing to what we saw happen in 2023.  And I thought you played down Steichen performance last year.  It was eye popping to me.  
 

Even if I agreed that Steichen has been disappointing this season, I’m not so frustrated that my general reaction is…. He’s had a bad year but with some weird circumstances, some from his making, some not.   So I’m not ready to change the HC or draft a new QB which is a popular idea here these last 24 hours.  That’s fan reaction.  (Not talking about you in that last sentence).   
 

Wrapping up:  I look forward to the rest of the season.  I think we should finish 9-8.  I don’t know if that will get the Colts to the playoffs?   Then I look forward to the off-season.  What changes do the Colts make?   Bradley?  Offensive coaches?   Personnel?   Ballard’s approach?  
 

I’d say I’m very curious for whatever lies ahead.