Time to evaluate

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Solid84 said:

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...

And the problem is not that we have to wait for a young player to pan out. Very few players are great from the very start as rookies. The problem is that Ballard repeatedly bets on and relies on those players to make his team better right away. He relies on Brents and Jones to be great from the start. He depends on Kemoko, Banogu, Lewis, Basham to be good from the start. He relies on Pierce, Downs, Pittman to be good from the start, he bets on Woods, Ogletree, Malory to be good right away... It's not one or two. Because of his reluctance to supplement the roster with FAs, the young players are thrown into the fire and if they are struggling there is no backstop, there is no vet FA acquisition to raise the level of the group. We've seen this so many times. 

[smittywerb]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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. 

 

EXACTLY!  When the 22 year old inexperienced qb is kicking other players in the butt for screwing up, we have a problem…and he’s not it.

[NewColtsFan]

6 hours ago, CR91 said:

I'm not gonna overreact losing to the lions, but the rest of the schedule needs to be wins imo for Ballard and Shane to avoid getting fired. Even the broncos game is winnable and easily the most important game left on the schedule 

Dear God….

 

I don’t know how to break it to you, you just stated that unless the Colts win-out and go 10-7 you think Ballard and Steichen should get fired.   
 

You have no idea what a silly over reaction that is.   And I’m being kind. 

[compuls1v3]

3 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I’m not saying AR definitely will be elite, but I think he definitely will be “good enough” to build around. Sort of like a Purdy level, but hopefully more. 
 

With the picks we’ve used at the TE position it’s disappointing we don’t even have a servicable player there.

 

I was against paying JT. He’s a great at what he does, but he’s so reliant on our Oline giving him lanes. He can’t run around the tackles and he’s not a good receiver. I’d like it if we leaned more into the run game to support AR, but that requires a talent infusion and more creative playcalling I think. 
 

I thought the Oline started out really good this season, but everyone except Nelson have been injured at least one game. Bortolini and Goncalves have done well stepping up I think, but Tucker isn’t ready to start. I hope Glow can plug that hole. 
 

I’m not at all a fan of our LBs. I think for Gus’ scheme to truly work we need a does-everything 3-down LB at Mike and Franklin just ain’t it. It’s unfortunate we had to let a guy like Okereke go, but it made sense at the time. 
 

There nothing about our secondary that makes me think we shouldn’t keep throwing picks at it. It’s unfortunate Ballard is so against getting FA help, because I think that could go a long way. 

I'm curious why everyone thinks JT is a bad catcher?  Do the stats show he drops alot of passes?  I remember times when Reich would call a HB pass, and it would get good yardage.  As a matter of fact, if based on this one stat alone (catch %), who would you choose as a RB to pass to?  76.48% or 71.8%?

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TaylJo02.htm#all_rushing_and_receiving

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GoodTy00.htm#all_rushing_and_receiving

 

Now maybe he sucks at blocking, but one would THINK that can be coached up.  I have no idea.

[John Waylon]

Just now, Solid84 said:

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.

Exactly. It’s ebb and flow. But there’s no ebb with Ballard. It’s flow, float, and sink. Then rinse and repeat. He won’t allow himself to admit when one of his precious handpicked draft picks isn’t cutting it and take any corrective action on it. It’s just wait around to draft the next attempt. 
 

I’m over the “doesn’t miss more than other GMs” defense. Who gives a %? The fruit of his labor could not be any clearer right here in front of us, and it’s not good enough. What’s the upside of not missing more than anyone else if this is the result and the ceiling it puts this team under? Drafting guys that keep a team mired in the middle really isn’t an improvement over missing more than anyone else. It just keeps us stuck in the cycle of being mid. 

[Solid84]

1 minute ago, compuls1v3 said:

I'm curious why everyone thinks JT is a bad catcher?  Do the stats show he drops alot of passes?  I remember times when Reich would call a HB pass, and it would get good yardage.  As a matter of fact, if based on this one stat alone (catch %), who would you choose as a RB to pass to?  76.48% or 71.8%?

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TaylJo02.htm#all_rushing_and_receiving

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GoodTy00.htm#all_rushing_and_receiving

 

Now maybe he sucks at blocking, but one would THINK that can be coached up.  I have no idea.

It's not so much about comp% as much what you can ask and expect of them. Neither of JT or Goodson are "pass catching" RBs in my opinion.

 

We've seen Goodson drop a couple really big plays and JT wouldn't have looked any different. A pass catching RB has to have near WR hands in my opinion. Look at Kamara, McCaffrey and Barkley. They can make plays in the passing game none of our RBs can.

[stitches]

28 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

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. 
 

It's not surprising that we lost from the Lions. It won't be surprising that we will be losing to other contenders too.

 

The surprising thing is that in 8 years we haven't been among those contenders once. And even more surprising is that some fans seem to be OK with that and think the guy ahead of the operation that has given us a losing team over those 8 years should be given even more time to turn us into a contender.

 

28 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

 

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.
 

 Yes, this is kind of a banal point. You beat the worse teams, you lose from the better teams. It's not any sort of an insight. But again - the question here should not be why we are not beating better teams than us? The question should be - why are we not a better team ourselves? And what gives us any hope that this will change under this management?

28 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

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

This is not about this Monday. This is about the state of the roster over the last 8 years and the expectations for it for the foreseeable future under this same management.

28 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

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).   
 

Steichen has had a bad year on multiple levels. I still have hopes that he can learn from some of his mistakes. IMO if Ballard gets released, the new GM should get the chance to choose wether to release Steichen or not. 

 

I think AR has shown enough to deserve a other year. 

28 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

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. 

 

You change Bradley. Ballard picks another guy from the same coaching tree that runs the same defense Ballard wants us to run.

 

What gives us any hope that Ballard's approach will change? Ok, we get some rookies to add to the roster. You cannot rely on rookies to be great year one. You are not getting any type of significant FA additions.

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, stitches said:

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.

 

There's a lot of hyperbole in there. Seems like that's what's required to make this argument sound good, which is why I generally don't engage on this.

 

For example, you mention the WRs, and say he did nothing to improve the group three years in a row. Do you realize that going back to 2019, Ballard has spent either a second or a third round pick on a WR every year except 2021? That five of the last six years. Say that you don't like what he did, that's fine. But saying he did nothing is untrue. And speaking to being patient with young players, Alec Pierce is actually good and productive if the QB can push the ball down the field, but most people wrote him off.

 

Say you don't like what he did at DE, but he didn't do nothing. It's ironic to pick on this position group, because the players that everyone wanted the Colts to keep were previously veteran free agent signings by Ballard, and by that point, they would have qualified as 'our guys'. And when they let those veterans walk, it wasn't just for Banogu, Turay, and Lewis, who should have been able to fill the shoes of the veterans who left. He had also just used his first round pick on a DE. (When Ballard signs Paye to a three year extension this offseason, I won't object to this argument.) Again, say you don't like what he did, but saying he did nothing is untrue.

 

TE is a weird one also. We know the Colts targeted Bowers, even tried to trade up for him. This isn't a position that generally gets improved in free agency, and it's not like everyone was begging for Jonnu Smith. It was Bowers or Bust in almost everyone's eyes.

 

This criticism basically boils down to 'Ballard won't throw money around to make me feel better about this position group.' Even though we know that throwing money around isn't good strategy, and we know that young players can get better.

 

I think Ballard has significant faults that will prevent him from being successful. Being patient with young players isn't one of them. He's definitely too rigid in free agency (and other areas), but relying on free agency for a meaningful boost to overall roster quality is a flawed proposition itself. 

[Superman]

41 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

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...

 

He actually staggers his three year projects pretty well... 2017 was Basham in the third round; 2018 was Turay and Lewis in the second; 2019 was Banogo; 2021 was Paye and Dayo (and Dayo was IR'd in Year 1, so he's staggered to 2022)... If half of those guys live up to their draft status, it would have been pretty good. Most of them were underwhelming, and even the average ones aren't game changers. Same thing at WR. (I don't expect any of that to make you feel better, LOL.)

 

I said two years ago, I think DE is a blind spot for Ballard, particularly in the draft. Polian had one at OL. This is when you either make a change with the position coach, or go get a proven veteran, or both.

[Solid84]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

This criticism basically boils down to 'Ballard won't throw money around to make me feel better about this position group.' Even though we know that throwing money around isn't good strategy, and we know that young players can get better.

Isn't this hyperbole too though? There's a lot of grey area here that doesn't get covered and a lot of it could have improved this team. That's the real issue. 

[Solid84]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

He actually staggers his three year projects pretty well... 2017 was Basham in the third round; 2018 was Turay and Lewis in the second; 2019 was Banogo; 2021 was Paye and Dayo (and Dayo was IR'd in Year 1, so he's staggered to 2022)... If half of those guys live up to their draft status, it would have been pretty good. Most of them were underwhelming, and even the average ones aren't game changers. Same thing at WR. (I don't expect any of that to make you feel better, LOL.)

 

I said two years ago, I think DE is a blind spot for Ballard, particularly in the draft. Polian had one at OL. This is when you either make a change with the position coach, or go get a proven veteran, or both.

I mean, it's good he at least sticks to drafting positions when they aren't locked down even if we have players under development. I think that's a good approach. I just don't think you can build a team solely through the draft.

[stitches]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There's a lot of hyperbole in there. Seems like that's what's required to make this argument sound good, which is why I generally don't engage on this.

 

For example, you mention the WRs, and say he did nothing to improve the group three years in a row. Do you realize that going back to 2019, Ballard has spent either a second or a third round pick on a WR every year except 2021? That five of the last six years. Say that you don't like what he did, that's fine. But saying he did nothing is untrue. And speaking to being patient with young players, Alec Pierce is actually good and productive if the QB can push the ball down the field, but most people wrote him off.

 

Say you don't like what he did at DE, but he didn't do nothing. It's ironic to pick on this position group, because the players that everyone wanted the Colts to keep were previously veteran free agent signings by Ballard, and by that point, they would have qualified as 'our guys'. And when they let those veterans walk, it wasn't just for Banogu, Turay, and Lewis, who should have been able to fill the shoes of the veterans who left. He had also just used his first round pick on a DE. (When Ballard signs Paye to a three year extension this offseason, I won't object to this argument.) Again, say you don't like what he did, but saying he did nothing is untrue.

 

TE is a weird one also. We know the Colts targeted Bowers, even tried to trade up for him. This isn't a position that generally gets improved in free agency, and it's not like everyone was begging for Jonnu Smith. It was Bowers or Bust in almost everyone's eyes.

 

This criticism basically boils down to 'Ballard won't throw money around to make me feel better about this position group.' Even though we know that throwing money around isn't good strategy, and we know that young players can get better.

 

I think Ballard has significant faults that will prevent him from being successful. Being patient with young players isn't one of them. He's definitely too rigid in free agency (and other areas), but relying on free agency for a meaningful boost to overall roster quality is a flawed proposition itself. 

Again... This is NOT about him not being patient with young players. I actually like that part of his decisionmaking. Young players need time. This is about not supplementing those young players and relying almost exclusively on those young players to improve your team. 

 

The WRs is a perfect example - I love that we've been taking WRs early in the draft. This is NOT the problem. The problem is when you rely on those young players to perform at a high level from the very start because the alternative is Ashton Dulin or Zack Pascal. This is why you have had underwhelming WR unit for the entirety of Ballard's tenure(until maybe this year). Yes , he drafts Campbell and relies on him being an impact player from the start. And he fails. Yes he drafts Pittman and relies on him to be WR1 from the jump before he's shown he can do it. Then he drafts Pierce and relies on him to be WR2... From the start. And he fails. Until year 3. Downs is kind of the outlier here - he was ready to contribute at the position that was ready for him from the start. Right now the WR group looks promising. But you needed 4-5 years of bad WR play to get here. And in the meantime you were putting one of the worst WR groups in the league on the field. 

 

Similar can be said for other position groups -DEs, DBs, etc. Sure, if you keep drafting them, at some point you are bound to hit on a couple and that respective group would look promising/good. But in the meantime - you have 3-4-5 years of bad to mediocre play at that position(DE has been mediocre at best pretty much for the entirety of Ballard's tenure). This is what happens when you don't supplement and rely almost exclusively on the draft. Right now we are in the same position with the DBs, we've been drafting players for a few years and just plopping them into big roles and hoping they swim and not sink. And at some point we might hit on a CB1 to pair with Jones who IMO is good enough to be starter but probably best suited as CB2 type. But again , in the meantime - mediocre at best DB play.

 

This is how you get mediocre team year after year. 

[richard pallo]

As an aside I just read where the Broncos are waiving TE Greg Dulcich today.  He’s a 3rd rd pick who is signed through 2025.  He generated interest at the trade deadline but they decided to keep him.  Now they have some players ready to come off IR so they need to make some room on their roster.  Hence the release.  If I’m Ballard I’m putting in a claim.  Our TE room is weak so why not put in a claim.  Nothing to lose really.  Check him out.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

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. 

 

I was playing with the ESPN playoff machine the other day. It looks like 9-8 leaves the Colts on the outside looking in, unless the Texans fall apart and we win the division. The Texans would have to lose four of their next five: @ Jags, vs Dolphins, @ Chiefs, vs Ravens, @ Titans (who they lost to yesterday, at home). I think the Texans are pretty good, despite their recent rough patch, so I'm not holding my breath. If the Colts win the division at 9-8, because the Texans implode, I'll be happy we're in the playoffs, but I won't think the Colts are good enough to contend.

 

If we go 10-7, I'll probably be a little more encouraged. That would at least include a meaningful win against the Broncos, who are playing well right now.

 

Moving on from that, do you think I'm angry? I was definitely angry with the way the benching was handled, but in general, do you think my position on the Colts and their leaders is because I'm angry? Because that comes across as a strawman, a way to dismiss my argument without really considering it.

 

I'm not saying the result of the Lions game is a wake-up call. (Although, I think the Lions easily dominated the Colts yesterday, and some people are kind of relieved that the final score wasn't embarrassing, but they kind of cruised to an easy win.) This moment in time is not a wake-up call; maybe I could have worded that better.

 

I'm responding to you telling moose that the only reason he wants to "evaluate" right now is because he has an agenda (you're probably right about that). My point is that the best time to evaluate is against the best teams. And the reason is because we want to become one of the best teams. It's reasonable to evaluate this roster, after eight years of Ballard's management, against a team that's been constructed over the last four years. That's not unfair to Ballard. I acknowledge that there have been some rough circumstances for which he shouldn't be blamed, but still, we've fallen well behind teams like the Lions, who have been a bumbling mess for as long as anyone can remember. We're not even close.

 

Or the Texans. This is Caserio's fourth season. They swept us, and basically locked up the division in doing so. They are a potential contender; we're resigned to an impending loss vs the Broncos.

 

But what we like to do is say 'hey, we won nine games last year with a backup QB, we beat the Jets on the road, we beat the Steelers, we're not bottoming out.' It's comforting to look at some of these accomplishments and say 'the arrow is pointing up.' I think that's what you're doing when you talk about Steichen in 2023, or before the season when you pointed to the new DL coach. Big picture, even if the arrow is pointing up, our rate of improvement is so gradual that it's almost insignificant. Meanwhile, the upward angle for other teams is significantly steeper. 

 

I'm not the 'eight years and no division titles!' guy. But our roster should be better than the average-on-a-good-day quality that we have. It's not even like we decided to tear down and rebuild; if we had, I'd be more supportive of Ballard right now. Instead, he doubled down on this barely average core, and in doing so, has limited the ceiling of this team.

 

So I don't want to burn things down because I'm angry. I'm not even saying we should burn things down. But I'm at the point where I think the operation is fundamentally flawed, and without changing the person running the operation, it's hard to expect better results. It's even harder to expect contention-quality results.

[compuls1v3]

54 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

It's not so much about comp% as much what you can ask and expect of them. Neither of JT or Goodson are "pass catching" RBs in my opinion.

 

We've seen Goodson drop a couple really big plays and JT wouldn't have looked any different. A pass catching RB has to have near WR hands in my opinion. Look at Kamara, McCaffrey and Barkley. They can make plays in the passing game none of our RBs can.

78.7 for Kamara.  I don't see the attempts, but Taylor at 76.8 isn't too far off.  I know that he doesn't have many attempts this year...

[Superman]

37 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Isn't this hyperbole too though? There's a lot of grey area here that doesn't get covered and a lot of it could have improved this team. That's the real issue. 

 

I don't think that's hyperbole, I mean that very literally. When people say 'Ballard ignores free agency,' or 'Ballard did nothing to improve this position,' they are dismissing all the things that Ballard has done within the grey area you speak of. And I think it boils down to the fact that they want big swings, not the grey area moves, which Ballard has used.

 

I agree that he should be more active within the grey area, though.

 

34 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I mean, it's good he at least sticks to drafting positions when they aren't locked down even if we have players under development. I think that's a good approach. I just don't think you can build a team solely through the draft.

 

How were the Lions built?

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

JT had 500 yards pass catching with Wentz. That narrative is hog wash

[Superman]

50 minutes ago, stitches said:

But again - the question here should not be why we are not beating better teams than us? The question should be - why are we not a better team ourselves? And what gives us any hope that this will change under this management?

 

I don't think there's a better way to put this. This is the argument, in a nutshell. 

 

50 minutes ago, stitches said:

You change Bradley. Ballard picks another guy from the same coaching tree that runs the same defense Ballard wants us to run.

 

I've said this before. It's not my favorite defensive scheme, but it's not fatally flawed. The Niners and Jets recently had top ten defenses with this scheme. The problem is the way Bradley runs this defense, which has generally been more rigid and conservative than anyone else.

 

To his credit, Bradley has been more aggressive and multiple for a few weeks now, and we've had some better results. Still not good enough, but I think now we can assign equal blame to the quality of the defensive roster as we do to the coaching.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Kevin Bowen once said for almost every rookie you draft there should be a vet. To either provide competition or so the player doesn’t have all the pressure right away. I think you can get away with that at WR as most WR are ready right away. Defense is where they are not ready right away. He did have enough behind latu this year which was good. Secondary is where this becomes flawed 

[CR91]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

Dear God….

 

I don’t know how to break it to you, you just stated that unless the Colts win-out and go 10-7 you think Ballard and Steichen should get fired.   
 

You have no idea what a silly over reaction that is.   And I’m being kind. 

 

You think Irsay is gonna continue to be patient with Ballard constantly not making the playoffs? 10-7 might not even get us in, but if we're not at least on the fringe of the playoffs I don't see how changes aren't made. Ballard is now on his 8th season and we've been to the playoffs two times and won one playoff game. GMs have been fired for far less 

[CR91]

1 hour ago, Solid84 said:

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.

 

That's only scratching the surface of Ballard's issues as a GM. He's too stubborn about the team building and refuses to address an issue until the issue cost us during the season 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

Again... This is NOT about him not being patient with young players. I actually like that part of his decisionmaking. Young players need time. This is about not supplementing those young players and relying almost exclusively on those young players to improve your team. 

 

The WRs is a perfect example - I love that we've been taking WRs early in the draft. This is NOT the problem. The problem is when you rely on those young players to perform at a high level from the very start because the alternative is Ashton Dulin or Zack Pascal. This is why you have had underwhelming WR unit for the entirety of Ballard's tenure(until maybe this year). Yes , he drafts Campbell and relies on him being an impact player from the start. And he fails. Yes he drafts Pittman and relies on him to be WR1 from the jump before he's shown he can do it. Then he drafts Pierce and relies on him to be WR2... From the start. And he fails. Until year 3. Downs is kind of the outlier here - he was ready to contribute at the position that was ready for him from the start. Right now the WR group looks promising. But you needed 4-5 years of bad WR play to get here. And in the meantime you were putting one of the worst WR groups in the league on the field. 

 

Similar can be said for other position groups -DEs, DBs, etc. Sure, if you keep drafting them, at some point you are bound to hit on a couple and that respective group would look promising/good. But in the meantime - you have 3-4-5 years of bad to mediocre play at that position(DE has been mediocre at best pretty much for the entirety of Ballard's tenure). This is what happens when you don't supplement and rely almost exclusively on the draft. Right now we are in the same position with the DBs, we've been drafting players for a few years and just plopping them into big roles and hoping they swim and not sink. And at some point we might hit on a CB1 to pair with Jones who IMO is good enough to be starter but probably best suited as CB2 type. But again , in the meantime - mediocre at best DB play.

 

This is how you get mediocre team year after year. 

 

This is a different argument at this point. Basically, the 'we like our guys' criticism becomes a blanket for anything that a person doesn't like about Ballard's team building. "Ballard won't do X because 'we like our guys!'" 

 

The sentiment being expressed by 'we like our guys' is dependent on context. Sometimes it simply means 'we're not giving up on our young players.' Sometimes it means 'we think the vets we resigned are as good as the free agents you wanted us to sign.' Sometimes it means 'we think the player we're keeping is a better option for us,' maybe because of money, maybe off field stuff, etc. 

 

And sometimes the right move is to stick with what you already have and let it play out. Still, other times, Ballard should be more aggressive in attacking weak spots. 

 

I'll point out a couple of small disagreements I have with the above, just because it will bug me if I don't. First, Campbell didn't fail, he got hurt, after a college career in which he almost never got hurt. Also, the Colts signed Funchess that same offseason, which speaks to your argument that they don't supplement with vets. 

 

Second, while Pierce needed to play better, he didn't fail either. He had QBs who were an awful match for what he does well, and play callers who wouldn't include him in the gameplan in any other way. But if your larger point is that we shouldn't depend on rookies without a veteran backstop, I won't necessarily disagree. I'll just say that the Colts expected better QBing and OL play, and probably wouldn't have really benefited from a veteran backstop in Pierce's rookie season anyway. But it does speak to Ballard's need to loosen up some in player acquisition.

[Solid84]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

How were the Lions built?

I honestly don't know, but just with a quick google search I can see they've signed DJ Reader this off season and David Montgomery last offseason. Both are starters for them.

[NewColtsFan]

6 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

You think Irsay is gonna continue to be patient with Ballard constantly not making the playoffs? 10-7 might not even get us in, but if we're not at least on the fringe of the playoffs I don't see how changes aren't made. Ballard is now on his 8th season and we've been to the playoffs two times and won one playoff game. GMs have been fired for far less 

Irsay is the wildcard.  He can be unpredictable.  But I think it would be a horrible look for him to fire Ballard and/or Steichen for the crime of going 9-8 whether or not we make the playoffs.  
 

Irsay has been one of the people preaching patience.  You’ve got a very young, VERY inexperienced QB with AR.   Blowing up the GM and/or HC would be the exact opposite of patience.   I think Irsay’s reputation would take a big hit.

 

What other franchises do doesn’t mean much to me.  Plenty of bad franchises make bad decisions again and again. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I honestly don't know, but just with a quick google search I can see they've signed DJ Reader this off season and David Montgomery last offseason. Both are starters for them.

 

We signed Raekwon Davis... They've been just as draft-dependent as the Colts. Some of their veteran acquisitions have worked out better than ours, though, like trading for Carlton Davis.

 

But even their team building strategy isn't really what most people who are critical of Ballard want to see. They drafted a RB at #12, their #1 WR came in the 4th round, they drafted a severely injured WR in the first round, they have highly paid interior linemen on both sides, they're super trench heavy in general... Even at QB, they traded for a limited veteran from the same draft class as Carson Wentz; in fact, Wentz was considered the better player at the time of the trades.

 

My point is that I don't think the overall strategy -- build through the draft, 'we like our guys' -- is the problem. Ballard does need to be more aggressive at times, but the real issue is with the execution of the strategy. IMO.

[CR91]

12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Irsay is the wildcard.  He can be unpredictable.  But I think it would be a horrible look for him to fire Ballard and/or Steichen for the crime of going 9-8 whether or not we make the playoffs.  
 

Irsay has been one of the people preaching patience.  You’ve got a very young, VERY inexperienced QB with AR.   Blowing up the GM and/or HC would be the exact opposite of patience.   I think Irsay’s reputation would take a big hit.

 

What other franchises do doesn’t mean much to me.  Plenty of bad franchises make bad decisions again and again. 

 

All I'm saying is eventually the leash has to start getting shorter. You can't keep being satisfied with mediocre to average colt teams essentially throughout Ballard's tenure 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, smittywerb said:

 

EXACTLY!  When the 22 year old inexperienced qb is kicking other players in the butt for screwing up, we have a problem…and he’s not it.

 

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2024/11/25/colts-anthony-richardson-cant-rise-to-a-standard-that-doesnt-exist/76386274007/

[compuls1v3]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2024/11/25/colts-anthony-richardson-cant-rise-to-a-standard-that-doesnt-exist/76386274007/

My take away from this article is that it is STILL the play calling by SS failing AR.  3 WRs are saying the routes are too deep, with little to no short passes.  

 

It's so frustrating to watch.  We don't need first downs every pass.  2 five yard passes, or mix in more runs.

 I acknowledge execution is part of it as well, but we need to see more of those throws in the game plan.

 

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

All I'm saying is eventually the leash has to start getting shorter. You can't keep being satisfied with mediocre to average colt teams essentially throughout Ballard's tenure 

Eventually.  Fine.   I’m ok with that.  
 

But after 2 years on what was always talked about to be a 4-5 year project and the possibility that the Colts go 9-8 in both the first two years?   I just don’t see that happening.  
 

This off-season there were a number of posters reminding everyone here that Ballard and Steichen were tied to Richardson, for better or worse.  And it was stressed that our GM and HC were likely going to be around for several more years.   
 

A disappointing first half of this season has brought out the worst in a number of posters here.  

[Defjamz26]

 

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

Eventually.  Fine.   I’m ok with that.  
 

But after 2 years on what was always talked about to be a 4-5 year project and the possibility that the Colts go 9-8 in both the first two years?   I just don’t see that happening.  
 

This off-season there were a number of posters reminding everyone here that Ballard and Steichen were tied to Richardson, for better or worse.  And it was stressed that our GM and HC were likely going to be around for several more years.   
 

A disappointing first half of this season has brought out the worst in a number of posters here.  

Bro it’s been 8 years. 8 years with 1 playoff win. He can’t get another pass because now we’re developing a young QB. This is Jason Garrett territory now, even though we’re talking about a GM. It’s consistent mediocrity. This team hasn’t won more than 9 games in 4 years.

 

Whats worse is the team isn’t getting better year to year. It’s the same players rolled over into the next season with a draft class and bargain bin FAs. Every year it’s an excuse:

 

2017: Ballard’s first year no Luck

2018: Good year!

2019: un expected retirement of Luck

2020: Still feeling effects from Luck retirement and the team is “you”. Made playoffs though

2021: Wentz was the scapegoat

2022: It was Reich and Ryan as the scapegoats 

2023: The secondary was young and they lost AR

2024: AR is young and developing 

 

This team has not made any significant progress in his tenure. Grigson and Pagano improved for their first 3 years at least. Playoff appearance, playoff win, and then an AFC championship game appearance before all hell broke loose. And even then they went back to back 8-8. That’s better than Ballard’s 4-12, 7-9, and 4-12 losing seasons that he’s had.  9-8 doesn’t get you in the playoffs in this conference. The other thing is they go 9-8 and do nothing to help them take a step. What exactly did he do this offseason to get the team from 9-8 to at least 10-7?

[compuls1v3]

4 hours ago, Solid84 said:

It's not so much about comp% as much what you can ask and expect of them. Neither of JT or Goodson are "pass catching" RBs in my opinion.

 

We've seen Goodson drop a couple really big plays and JT wouldn't have looked any different. A pass catching RB has to have near WR hands in my opinion. Look at Kamara, McCaffrey and Barkley. They can make plays in the passing game none of our RBs can.

Ok, I'll bite.  So you don't care about completion percentage, and ONLY about what they can do with the ball afterwards.

 

Christian McAffrey - the best             

Longest Reception - 84 yards

Longest Reception over a Career Average - 44 yards.

Receiving Yards per Reception over Career Average - 8.5 yards

Receiving Yards per Target over a Career Average - 6.9

Receptions per Game over a Career Average - 5.6

First Downs Receiving over a Career Average - 43

 

Jonathan Taylor - Good back

Longest Reception - 76 yards

Longest Reception over a Career Average - 39.8 yards

Receiving Yards per Reception over a Career Average - 7.8 yards

Receiving Yards per Target over a Career Average - 6.1

Receptions per Game over a Career Average - 2.2

First Downs Receiving over a Career Average - 11

 

Many of these stats are similar.  The 2 stats that stand to be the most different are the Receptions per Game and the First Downs Receiving.  I think one leads to the other.  My entire argument is that he should be involved in the passing game more.  JT's longest RECEPTION went for 76 yards.  We need to get him in space, especially if our O-Line is banged up.  And we paid him alot of money last year.  Get him more involved!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

14 hours ago, richard pallo said:

That’s not a Turkey.   That’s a Flamingo!   Lol

[smittywerb]

2 hours ago, compuls1v3 said:

My take away from this article is that it is STILL the play calling by SS failing AR.  3 WRs are saying the routes are too deep, with little to no short passes.  

 

It's so frustrating to watch.  We don't need first downs every pass.  2 five yard passes, or mix in more runs.

 I acknowledge execution is part of it as well, but we need to see more of those throws in the game plan.

 

“Pierce is now the third Colts starting wide receiver to make public suggestions about running shorter routes to stay on the field and keep hits off of a quarterback who has missed 15 games to injury the past two seasons.”

 

I don’t think this forum understands the gravity of that quote.  This is very telling and honestly worrisome.  This is not good.  Yeah, I said it already but I DEFINITELY want someone else calling plays.

[NewColtsFan]

5 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

All I'm saying is eventually the leash has to start getting shorter. You can't keep being satisfied with mediocre to average colt teams essentially throughout Ballard's tenure 

This response is fair-ish.   But it’s a long way from if the Colts don’t win out and go 10-7 then Ballard and Steichen should get fired.   That was totally different than what you’re saying now.   

[NewColtsFan]

18 minutes ago, smittywerb said:

“Pierce is now the third Colts starting wide receiver to make public suggestions about running shorter routes to stay on the field and keep hits off of a quarterback who has missed 15 games to injury the past two seasons.”

 

I don’t think this forum understands the gravity of that quote.  This is very telling and honestly worrisome.  This is not good.  Yeah, I said it already but I DEFINITELY want someone else calling plays.

This is an interesting post.  Thanks for making it.   Other than Pierce, who else is also saying more short routes to help AR?  
 

[compuls1v3]

9 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

This is an interesting post.  Thanks for making it.   Other than Pierce, who else is also saying more short routes to help AR?  
 

It's in the article Superman posted.   Downs and MPJ.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

 

Bro it’s been 8 years. 8 years with 1 playoff win. He can’t get another pass because now we’re developing a young QB. This is Jason Garrett territory now, even though we’re talking about a GM. It’s consistent mediocrity. This team hasn’t won more than 9 games in 4 years.

 

Whats worse is the team isn’t getting better year to year. It’s the same players rolled over into the next season with a draft class and bargain bin FAs. Every year it’s an excuse:

 

2017: Ballard’s first year no Luck

2018: Good year!

2019: un expected retirement of Luck

2020: Still feeling effects from Luck retirement and the team is “you”. Made playoffs though

2021: Wentz was the scapegoat

2022: It was Reich and Ryan as the scapegoats 

2023: The secondary was young and they lost AR

2024: AR is young and developing 

 

This team has not made any significant progress in his tenure. Grigson and Pagano improved for their first 3 years at least. Playoff appearance, playoff win, and then an AFC championship game appearance before all hell broke loose. And even then they went back to back 8-8. That’s better than Ballard’s 4-12, 7-9, and 4-12 losing seasons that he’s had.  9-8 doesn’t get you in the playoffs in this conference. The other thing is they go 9-8 and do nothing to help them take a step. What exactly did he do this offseason to get the team from 9-8 to at least 10-7?

I don’t know why you bothered to write all this.  It’s completely bogus.   All of it.  
 

The moment the Colts got a new head coach and SS and CB agreed Richardson was their guy, that changed EVERYTHING.   
 

There is exactly zero logic in changing the plan 2 years into a 4-5 year plan.  Zero logic.  Especially when the first two years are 9-8 and now a projected 9-8.  
 

This year COULD HAVE imploded and that might have led to a big change, we were all talking about it the first half of the season and especially the two week benching over the tap-out.  But there’s now been enough improvement to view this as a potential 9-8 season.  And if the Colts go 9-8 this is a decent season.  
 

You need to hate Ballard Less and like the Colts more.  Otherwise your posts like this are just the angry rants of a frustrated fan.  

[NewColtsFan]

5 minutes ago, compuls1v3 said:

It's in the article Superman posted.   Downs and MPJ.

Interesting.  Richardson is supposed to be working with Shane and Jim Bob as they build the game plan for each week.  So this, in theory shouldn’t happen.  This feels like another learning moment for a very young, very inexperienced QB.   
 

Thanks for the info.   

[Defjamz26]

10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I don’t know why you bothered to write all this.  It’s completely bogus.   All of it.  
 

The moment the Colts got a new head coach and SS and CB agreed Richardson was their guy, that changed EVERYTHING.   
 

There is exactly zero logic in changing the plan 2 years into a 4-5 year plan.  Zero logic.  Especially when the first two years are 9-8 and now a projected 9-8.  
 

This year COULD HAVE imploded and that might have led to a big change, we were all talking about it the first half of the season and especially the two week benching over the tap-out.  But there’s now been enough improvement to view this as a potential 9-8 season.  And if the Colts go 9-8 this is a decent season.  
 

You need to hate Ballard Less and like the Colts more.  Otherwise your posts like this are just the angry rants of a frustrated fan.  

You are carrying water for Ballard and Steichen. You’re creating fantasy narratives about some type of long term plan for this team that doesn’t exist. It’s this idea of some type of delayed gratification approach that people have been talking about since 2017. 
 

So Ballard wanted to win but then had to abort mission because the coach he hired wasn’t good and he drafted a QB that needs time? We’re are you getting these ideas of these 4-5 year plans?

 

So what Luck retires and it’s then a 4 year plan because they do t have the franchise QB? So we’re giving him a pass for 2019-2023? Got it. So then, Ballard changes coaches and him and SS devise a 4-5 plan centering on the development of Anthony Richardson, expecting to not win anything meaning while he develops? That sounds preposterous. I have never heard of anything like that in the NFL. That is excuse making if I’ve ever seen it. The Titans made an AFC championship in the time that Ballard has been the GM and fired their HC and GM with less years together.
 

No accomplishments in 8 years and you’re saying “This was all part of the plan”. Your defenses are the same every year just like this team. “It could be/have been worse so the fact that we’re not worse off is a testament to the staff”. Then You usually say “Look at the Browns, Raiders, etc… Would you rather be like them”?

 

You’ve provided no evidence of this “plan” you speak of, leading me to believe this is your way of coping with the disappointment that is the Colts. It’s denial in every sense of the word.

[compuls1v3]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

Interesting.  Richardson is supposed to be working with Shane and Jim Bob as they build the game plan for each week.  So this, in theory shouldn’t happen.  This feels like another learning moment for a very young, very inexperienced QB.   
 

Thanks for the info.   

I need to review the tape and see if AR was ignoring checkdowns, but off memory I don't recall easy 5 yard routes, checks to RBs out of the backfield, screens, or anything of that nature. 

 

When you watch great teams like the Lions, KC, SF, GB, Bills, you see these types of plays all the time. 

 

My biggest gripe this entire season, from a coaching standpoint, is that we don't get enough first downs and have too many three and outs.  They kind of go hand and hand. 

 

Since the Lions are a really good team, let's compare last game. 

 

Lions, on 10 drives, 7 were 6 or more plays each, with 26 first downs on 7 of 13 3rd down conversations (53 8%).

 

Colts on 9 drives (throwing out the end of half kneel down), 4 were 6 or more plays each, with 11 first downs on 3 of 12 3rd down conversations (25%).

 

Our offense HAS to be better, despite the penalties and supporting cast errors and depleted OLine.

 

We can't live by do or die mentality of the big plays IF we want to compete with the big boys.

 

Finally, I want to get this off my chest.   Despite how much better the defense could have played, we held the Lions to the 3rd lowest points of 10 other teams.   It wasn't perfect, but it made the game winnable (this was NOT directed at you).