I mean that would suck as well, but my biggest fear is another Grigson, whether or not he gets a franchise QB. Ballard can build a roster. If you replace him, will the new guy be able to build a roster?

What does it matter how talent was acquired? If the Colts signed a QB no one here had ever heard of off the street tomorrow and he won 2025 NFL MVP, would you care that the Colts didn't draft him? Also, you realize there are less than 50 All-Pro players every year in a league of 2,240 players, right? If you just do a per team average, it works out to 1.56 All-Pros per team, and that's first and second team, by the way. Oh, and the Colts had 2 All-Pros last year, and while Franlin probably shouldn't have made it, Buckner should have over Zach Allen.

Regardless, how can we say the roster is good? Because with bad QB play, it's still a ~.500 team. All that's needed is good QB play.

Why not? 2023 was supposed to be a down year, and starting Minshew would've meant sitting AR for the year, which would've been good for his development.

Dam, it doesn't matter how you get players but that isn't what I was pointing out. Buckner required almost zero evaluation. He was an established player who was flirting with all pro. That isn't who Ballard gets paid to evaluate. My point was he has evaluated and drafted very few perennial top 100 type impact defensive players over the past 9 years. All pros are hard to find and to draft. Somehow you think that gives Ballard a pass. I just don't get that. It is damn hard to find that GM that can do that but it doesn't mean we should be satisfied with ok. I sure hope new ownership isn't.

Oh and I don't give a shit who you think or don't think should have been all pro.

I was out of town this weekend (saw Oasis in Chicago then in Indy for a couple of days visiting family), but I did follow the topic on my phone and have been somewhat chomping at the bit to put in my .02.

I don't think anyone on here is upset w/ Ballard selecting AR. He took a big swing for the fences, and if he ends up striking out then so be it. Where we (or at least I) have issues is with the clear lack of vision in the development plan for AR. They draft one of if not the rawest QB prospects in history, hand him the starters keys from the get go, and just 2 years and 15 starts into his career they've pretty much given up on him. So maybe the issue is more Steichen than Ballard, or maybe there's something to Jim pressuring them to start AR. But Ballard was pretty quick to say that Irsay didn't do this in his presser last week. Of course he could be just saying that to avoid any additional controversy, etc.

I'm guessing that if DJ struggles (which despite what a lot of you believe is a distinct possibility) combined w/ AR not improving both Ballard and Steichen will be gone, since one of the two will in all likelihood have to play well for us to make the playoffs.

I have plenty more thoughts on everything discussed, but it's late so will post more tomorrow.

Irsay, handed AR the starters keys. I hope that nobody on this forum believes that AR beat out Minshew after a week of TC, and then 2 years later, couldn't beat out Daniel Jones? He didn't beat out Minshew and probably wouldn't beat out Minshew today.

Jonathan Taylor is good, but not THAT good. Maybe the 55th ranked QB was not actually the 55th best QB, but still not solid enough to manage a team well.

Not sure how you got that I was saying or suggesting that AR beat out Minshew in '23. He was clearly handed the starter job from pretty much day one. As far as Irsay pressuring the FO and coaches to start AR here's what Ballard said about it:

The article then goes to state that Irsay did say he thought AR would get better by playing right away, but that was aligned w/ what Steichen had said from the point right after we drafted AR. So based off of all of their comments it seems like Irsay, Ballard, and Steichen were all aligned in starting AR from day 1.

You guys are really underestimating how soft our schedules have been, especially last year. We played 6 games against the bottom 4 teams in the league, another 2 against bottom 10 teams, and 1 against a Tua-less Phins which is a bottom 5 team. 7/8 wins in '24 came in those games.


Some other thoughts I have based on the discussion:

On Ballard - yes, he's a good GM, but IMO he's not a great GM. He's a pretty good talent evaluator and for the most part has drafted well, but his phobia of top tier FAs has handicapped his effectiveness and has been a big factor in our mediocrity over the past 5 seasons. I agree w/ rn that his decision to bring in win now QBs and slow play other parts of the roster is not a winning strategy. It was really good to see him finally step out of his comfort zone this offseason, so if we have a good season and he keeps his job then hopefully he doesn't go back into his shell.

Also, I don't think the fear of bringing in someone worse should be the reason we keep Ballard. If we think we can go get someone better then we should go get them.

On Grigson - Yeah he was god awful, and his incompetence has definitely made Ballard look better than he actually is. Something I've always found interesting about Grigson's tenure is that he made a lot of really good moves when we were backed up against the cap in '12, but once the cap handcuffs were taken off things went to shit. We lost Tom Telesco after the '12 season, so I think a lot of the success from the Grig's first offseason probably came from Telesco.

Sorry man, I’m not buying the small market thing. First, being aggressive doesn’t just mean in free agency. You mentioned Mahomes and KC. That’s a great example. How did KC get Mahomes? They had a QB that had gotten them to the playoffs 3 of 4 years and was a pro bowl alternate several times, but it wasn’t good enough to get them over the hump. So they traded UP in the first round to get Mahomes. From 27 to 10. And then they traded Alex Smith after another playoff and Pro Bowl alternate selection to give the keys to Mahomes. All of that seems like a no brainer NOW because it’s Mahomes, but that wasn’t the case at the time. Mahomes was another unproven QB with question marks. Now be honest - do you see Ballard making those moves? I sure as hell don’t.

Second, Irsay seemed to pride himself in handing out big contracts. The signing bonus is still real money regardless if it’s resigning your own guy or paying an outside free agent. And Grigson didn’t have much issue signing free agents. He spent money. Some well, a lot poorly. Regardless it’s proof to me the small market isn’t as big an issue as many pretend.

Third, even when talking about being free agency most of us criticizing Ballard’s approach aren’t necessarily calling for the top free agents. We are asking for competent avg level players at obvious needs. Look at the secondary over a couple years. The team had an obvious glaring need that Ballard threw a collection of 1st and 2nd yr UDFA and 6th and 7th rounders at. Because he was content living with a shitty secondary until he could fix it in the draft. “We like our guys.” Of course the game that’s always played is to give a list of free agents, say why any that were known good wouldn’t sign here, disregard any that unexpectedly played well as nobody could have known, and then presenting the remaining list and saying “so what great player should he have signed”. Great isn’t the point. Often average or even a little below average would have improved the team. A mediocre vet in the secondary is often going to make less mistakes than a mediocre (at best) 1st or 2nd yr player. And we saw it often. But Ballard needs to keep spots open for his draft picks and he doesn’t believe in the value of vets.

Go back to that Mahomes question - think Ballard would have pulled the trigger? Hell no he wouldn’t. Now go look at what KC did after their SB loss to the Bucs where their OL let them down. Do you see Ballard aggressively fixing the line the way KC did? Again, Hell no. They used the draft, free agency and trades to fix an issue. You know exactly what Ballard would have done - “we like our guys”. I just laugh when I hear people say Ballard shares the KC front office philosophy. I’m sure there are some similarities and things he learned there, but aggression wasn’t one of them. His teams have consistently had glaring holes that have cost them in season. He’s always been content to deal with it later.

I think Green Bay just threw your small market argument a curve with being able to acquire and pay Parsons almost 50 million a year

Blocked

I considered that argument would come up. I am not sure how GB does some things they do, as they are a publicly owned team. It is a unique arrangement, so I am not sure how they do signing bonuses. Care to educate me on their structure? Google does not explain it well.

o


The Green Bay Packers are the only publicly-owned professional sports franchise in North America in which the team CANNOT move to another city and/or other part of the country, because the team is owned by stockholders. I actually met a woman at my gym here in Brewster, NY who owns 1 share of the Packers (she is originally from Wisconsin.) There are 539,000 stockholders overall.

Mark Murphy, who was the President and CEO of the Packers from 2007 through 2025, called the shots as to who gets hired and fired for the team's head coach and General Manager positions ...... Murphy just retired a little over a month ago, and the Packers share-holders voted for Ed Policy to be their new President and CEO.

o

I'm not sure, but obviously it can be done. I've heard that some believe that because they pay no dividends there is no real pressure to make money for the shareholders. Most owners feel like it is their own money that is being spent so paying someone $50 million of your money sits in some craws. All the Packers care about is winning, nobody who owns shares makes any money off of the team.

The top 100 players as voted on by NFL players are finally out. Zero Colts. Again voted on by their peers.

I have not seen the list, but I am very curious which 100 players were considered better than Nelson, Taylor and Buckner.

Maybe true (I wouldn’t put Taylor there but I like well rounded backs that block and are part of passing game) but what does it say that after 9 years this is the argument we give back? Three bottom 100 players, one of which wasnt scouted or developed by us. Ballard hits on the occasional mid to late round where hitting means you get an average player with a 7th rounder. You need to hit on high draft choices which Ballard does not do

Well, for one: Joe Mixon. The guy who is also notoriously bad in pass-pro and also played in 14 games like JT. And he didn't squeak in... he was 58th.

Mixon: 72.6 rush ypg, 4.1ypc, 94.6 scrimmage ypg, 12 tds

Taylor: 102.2 rush ypg, 4.7ypc, 111.9 scrimmage ypg, 12tds

----


To have him above JT at all, let alone a minimum of 42 guys between them, is silly. These aren't coaches or analysts.

o


ESPN l has their own Top-100 ......

Jonathan Taylor is at #69, up 21 spots from 2024 when he was at #90.

Quentin Nelson is at #61, down 1 spot from 2024 when he was at #60.


*********************************************


69) l Jonathan Taylor

RB | Colts

Age: 26

2024 rank: 90

When Taylor's healthy, he usually has a fantastic season. He is coming off a healthy offseason after a 2024 campaign in which he rushed for 1,431 yards in 14 games. He still possesses the sudden acceleration that makes him so dangerous in the open field, and he had an impressive training camp. ------ Stephen Holder

Signature Stat: l Taylor's 11 rushing TD's last season tied his 2nd-most in a season (18 in 2021, 11 in 2020), and matched his combined total from 2022-2023.

2025 Projection: l 342 carries, 1,578 yards, 11 TD's


*********************************************


61) l Quenton Nelson

G | Colts

Age: 29

2024 rank: 60


Nelson has been key to an offensive line that ranks seventh in rushing yards per game (126.2) since he entered the league in 2018. Notably, he hasn't missed a game since 2021 and has missed only four in his career. That durability figures to continue, given the feedback from his coaches, who say he is as well-prepared for 2025 as he has been for previous seasons. ------ Stephen Holder

Signature Stat: l Nelson has played and started in 51 games in the past three seasons, tied for the most among interior linemen in that span.


*********************************************


2025 NFL Rank: Predicting Top 100 Players for This Season

(ESPN NFL Staff)

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...dictions-stats

o

If only Ballard operated with that same philosiphy. How ironic Ballard could die by that sword.

Has Mixon ever dropped the ball at the 1/2 yard line?

Ballard absolutely gets paid to evaluate NFL players as well as college players. His job is to assemble the most talented roster possible. By definition, that will include some acquisitions that are not draft picks. Trading for Buckner was a big risk as well. He gave up the 13th pick, and that was a home run in terms of value. Of course in hindsight it seems obvious that it was the right move, but Buckner could've come in and been terrible, and everyone would've said he never should've traded away such a valuable asset for Buckner. That's what everyone said about the Trent Richardson trade, and rightfully so, because Trent Richardson was awful. Once again, this highlights the difference good talent evaluation makes.

I understand that sometimes change is a necessary catalyst, but change for its own sake is how you become the Cleveland Browns or the New York Jets.

I will say that if you can get someone better, I'm 1000% on board with that. The only problem is Howie Roseman and Brandon Beane already have jobs, and hiring one of their underlings doesn't mean they'll be any good. IIRC we got Grigson from Philly.

Yeah, Mixon's a head scratcher. Not just ahead of JT, but guys like Bijan Robinson and Kyren Williams as well.

Also, FWIW there are no OGs on the list.

I like Mixon's NFL game, but still, he couldn't carry JT's jock. Don't forget I'm a JT hater, and I still believe this to be true.

No, but he did drop a girl in that restaurant in Oklahoma.

We have totally different memories of the Buckner trade. I remember everyone on this board as well as every single article praising this deal and pointing out that it was only possible because there were two stud tackles in SF and they couldn't pay both. There was only real the risk of injury. I do understand how valuable Ballard and apparently you feel that thirteenth pick was, especially after the stud Malik Hooker we got at 15. My point being that draft choice was a much bigger gamble than Buckner was (it turned out to be that other stud Tristan Wirfs was taken at 13). My larger point is that the primary and by far most important evaluation made is trying to project how college players will play in the NFL. That is still the basis for building teams. Of course you evaluate NFL players but that isn't where you make your money as a GM.

Anyone can evaluate these guys from birth til draft what nobody can account for or predict is what these guys will do once they get lottery ticket money.

The best GMs use all avenues of talent acquisition consistently to build the best possible roster. I know everyone here thought Ballard was "afraid" of free agency prior to this past offseason, but Ballard had up to that point used free agency to get the only good year of Eric Ebron's career, starting caliber pass rushers in Denico Autry and Justin Houston, a #1 corner in Stephone Gilmore, and if you count the waiver wire, used it to pick up players like Kenny Moore, Samuel Womack, Pierre Desir, Al-Quadin Muhammad, Zach Pascal, Mark Glowinski, etc., including Chad Muma this year. In order to not end up like Grigson blowing tons of free agent dollars on very little production, or to be able to make waiver wire acquisitions that can be valuable starters, a GM has to be able to effectively evaluate NFL talent. Ballard has higher than average success rates in every avenue of talent acquisition. If you're going to get rid of that, you should be certain that you're going to get someone who can do the job better.

In regard to the Buckner trade, I wasn't saying Buckner was considered a risky acquisition at the time, but similarly Trent Richardson wasn't considered a risky acquisition when he was acquired. Clearly those two trades went very differently.

Okay, I want to ask this question...What result from this season will get the Ballard haters off his ass?

Will 10-7, and 1 win in the playoffs do it?

Will a division title do it?

Will winning the opener, beating the Jags in Jacksonville, but missing the playoffs at 9-8 do it?

What are you're measurements of success, that will convince you that Ballard is the man for the job?

I don’t think expecting a playoff win is unreasonable. This is taking into account injuries, bad calls, and some bad bounces that all teams must contend with. I also expect them to show up prepared to play and be competitive in every game. Even a playoff win followed by a shit-show would be unacceptable.

o


My guess would be that their criteria would be 14-3, an AFC Championship, and the Colts' first trip to the Super Bowl since 2009 ...... but then he'll be back hot-seat the following year if the Colts don't win it all in the 2026 season.

o

Development of young players into impact players (like Latu), continued development of AR and our young players. A team that is coached well enough not to shoot themselves in foot. I don’t even ‘need’ playoffs. I just want to see enough progression that I have something to root for that has what looks like a positive future.

Unless the Colts win the division, expecting a playoff win is unreasonable, because then you're expecting the team to go on the road against one of the division winners and beat them in their own stadium. Are you saying if the Colts went 10-7, ended up as, let's say, the 6 seed, and lost a close game on the road, that you'd want the whole front office replaced?


I doubt anyone is that unreasonable. That said, if that does somehow happen, that would mean actual good QB play from Daniel Jones, and I would want to know how that came to be.

Now this I can get behind. If the team is in the hunt all year, Latu has 12+ sacks and looks like tge disruptive force he was in college, Warren looks like a true TE1 and matchup nightmare, several of the young players make significant contributions, even if they don't make the playoffs, that sounds like a promising future. Since it sounds like they're trying to basically do a reset with AR and give him the Mahomes treatment, all I'm expecting there is health and no reports that he’s slacking off behind the scenes. If he then comes out gangbusters next year, we'll know it worked.

If this happened Ballard/Steichen would have proved I don't know shit and I would gladly crawl into their corner

o


"Unreasonable" and ColtFreals posts are synonymous concepts.

o

For me it's not so much just this year, but IMO it's going to take a few years of sustained success to convince me that Ballard is the man for the job.

I do think a decent year this year at 10+ wins or at the very least the team shows clear signs of improvement should get him a stay of execution.

Something I'd really like to see this team do is not play down to the level of competition and certainly not shit the bed against really bad teams (@Jagoffs and NYG last year).

At this point, it all comes down to one question: Can they make AR into a franchise QB? And it seems like they've found a way to buy another year of time to answer that question. Ballard has effectively adopted Dorsey's model 2 years late, with his hope being that Janiel Dones can play the part of Alex Smith. For our sakes, I hope it works, because I'm tired of watching bad football and not dominating this shit division.

I agree, I’m less concerned about the single season outcome than seeing something real and sustainable being built. My issues with Ballard have been with his team building philosophy so seeing (and believing) he has changed that philosophy is what it would take for me. It will be hard to convince me at this point that I was wrong in my criticisms of his philosophy because I have so many seasons of mediocrity to reinforce my beliefs. I will say, this is the most complete team I have seen him put together. Right now I believe it’s only because his job depends on it. If they have a good enough season to save his job I still won’t start believing until I see a continuation of the somewhat more aggressive approach.

I've been down on Ballard for a while, but if the team shows improvement and has a winning record I would be fine with rolling with him another season. I don't think we have an answer at QB right now and wouldn't mind seeing what he could build with a good young QB.

Wouldn't it be nice if Riley Leonard caught fire? I don't know... at this point I just want us to not lose the opener or to the Jags.

It’s hard to build a team when your Quarterback is completing less than 50 percent of his passes and has no clue how to run an NFL Offense. This year, Chris Ballard rolled the dice, hoping that Daniel Jones can rediscover the spark that propelled the Giants into the playoffs a couple of years ago. If Jones succeeds, no one will ask questions about Ballard’s team building ability.

That’s a cop out. For one, there’s been one season for Ballard that fits that description. And Ballard owns the QB situation on this team. His philosophy has been part of the issue. Two, the team building aspect goes way beyond the QB. If you haven’t seen the holes that he has left at various positions over the years then we just aren’t going to see things the same. If you’ve seen them and excuse them that’s fine, but then the issues extend a lot further than the simplistic excuse you are trying to make for him. I get that he’s teflon for a certain section of the fanbase though.