You are here because of me? If you are trying to catch some dick, you might want to try dam out. Probably have better luck.

Regardless, the point is, most of us aren’t going to wait until the season is over to have opinions. Get used to it or fuck off. Make better posts

You get a grip. Looking for dick? From you? Why would I think you have one?

Motel 6 left light on for both of you … :rolleyes:

Frank dealt with Jim Kelly and Peyton Manning. I don't think he's shy about anything

Heartbreak hotel for him, I've got my own country mansion

I sure missed a lot today, lol.

As for my expectations for this year, I was hoping to win 10 games or more, but that is not likely going to happen. Does that make me disappointed in the team? No, because they are once again fun to watch. They are headed in the right direction, for a change. No more stupid formations on fourth down. Decent linebackers.
An occasional running game. Time for Luck in the pocket. Etc.

Was that their slogan? I always thought it was someone else.

Damn, ten games racehorse? You doubled my prediction. I think we are going in the right direction. Just need to start bringing things together. I like watching the young guys develop. I want a great team, not just a playoff team, but a team that can punk those cheats in Boston. I’ll sit though a couple bad seasons if I think we are going to get there.

It is indeed.
https://youtu.be/-fZBo12LkpQ

Interesting info. Setting aside the whole Colts-Patriots rivalry thing, you really have to wonder about a guy who would prefer to stay in a coordinator position instead of taking a head coaching position. Even if (as rumored) he's now being paid a head coach's salary as a coordinator, doesn't he have any desire to take on the challenge of being a head coach? It's not like he's waiting for a better opportunity - by screwing over the Colts he's forever damaged his trust with any other teams. He might be a smart guy and a good coordinator, but he's not a leader and I don't think he would make a good head coach.

You list CB as an obvious issue and I agree. However I don’t agree that it’s manned by vets. 67% of the snaps taken so far have been by 2nd year players. The two current snap leaders are 2nd year players. Desir is 3rd as a 5th year player. He meets the “been in the league several years” description you used. He accounts for 29% of the teams CB snaps. Milton accounts for the remaining 4%. He’s a 3 year vet. I’d say CB is a pretty young, inexperienced position and one that could have been upgraded.

You also mentioned WR. It’s another position that could have been upgraded, but it appears as if Ballard is holding it open for a draft pick. Grant on a 1 yr contract was the solution along with a bunch of young guys and the holdover Rogers.

LB is manned by a potential star in Leonard, an old journeyman in Goode, and several unspectacular young players. It was also an upgradeable position.


A review of the standings reveals the team is 2-5. The same record as last year. This is after getting its franchise QB back, improving its coaching, improving the O-line, improving the defense (apparently quite a bit), and improving the roster as a whole. My argument hasn’t been that Ballard hasn’t added talent, it’s that he was assembling a roster that wouldn’t win as much as it should. Too much forced youth, too much reliance on 1st and 2nd year players, too many holes left unfilled. Everything supposedly better, but same record - I’d say the facts back up my argument pretty well.

Look at the games last year:
Rams 46 Colts 9
Arizona 16 Colts 13
Colts 31The Freaking Browns Browns 28
Seattle 46 Colts 18
Colts 26 The Freaking Awful 49ers 23
Titans 36 Colts 22
Jax 27 Colts 0

You really think the team is not better this year?!?!?! We squeaked by the two worst teams in the league and got blown out by the others. This year, we have been competitive in every game. The corner has been turned, despite the record. They may not have learned how to win, but they sure have forgotten how to quit!

Do I think the team is better? Absolutely. I’d much prefer this team and roster. Just the addition of Luck makes this year significantly better. Same for the subtraction of Pagano. That’s not at all the point though. Chaka says the facts don’t support my position. My position has been that Ballard knowingly punted on this season by releasing producing vets, not making more additions in free agency, and relying on so many young players. If everything is so much better, why hasn’t the team won as much as you or Chaka expected? Could it maybe be my point is valid? The roster was set with only the future in mind and not with competing this year. If you are ok with that great! I disagree with that approach and don’t believe it was necessary to build a future team. That doesn’t at all mean I hate everything Ballard or any change or that I want last years team back.

Let me add that if Luck had played last year (as he is this year) the record would have been better. If they had this years coaching staff last year, the record would have been better. Those two changes alone should be better than a 2-5 record. So what the hell am I missing? You say you were hoping for 10 wins. The season is going largely as I expected considering the issues I saw. Maybe, just maybe I was right about the roster? Whether or not this is the right path for the long term success of the team is admittedly a different question. But the discussion Chaka and I are having is about whether or not I have a leg to stand on about the roster building. I say the facts support me much better than it does those of you expecting a better record. That does not mean I want last years team back or that I hate everything Ballard has done.

Saying Ballard "punted" on the season makes it sound like tanking. I don't think he's tanking. I think he is prioritizing building culture and getting the young guys experience, and accepting whatever comes in terms of wins. That much seems pretty obvious.

I understand what you are saying. Let me clarify - I don’t think Ballard is specifically trying to loose, so I wouldn’t call in tanking. However, I believe he knows the team could be much better than it is this season and he was willing to sacrifice a competitive season for evaluation and, yes, to a lesser degree better draft position / capital. I don’t have some moral issue with that. I understand the thought process and I’ve said before that his job is to have a plan and follow it through. I respect that. My main disagreement has to do with the presence of Luck. Other than that I might agree with him. But where the average career is something like 3-4 years and your main asset (Luck) is one hit away from being your biggest liability (dead contract) I have a hard time taking the 3-4 year long view that Ballard is. And I don’t believe it is required for this team to become a contender.

Your point about CBs is fair – they are younger than I was thinking. Still no rookies though, and I don’t think it was unreasonable to expect last year’s high second rounder (Wilson) to step up and claim one of the CB positions. I also recall reading that Ballard explored resigning Melvin but was given a crazy price tag (something like 5 years / $50 million), and as I mentioned in another post, the 2018 free agent CB pool hasn’t proven to be very good at this early point. So perhaps this is one area where Ballard was content to take his lumps in the hopes that some of the young players like Wilson and Moore would emerge. This would be consistent with his strategy and does not equate to “sacrificing the season” – as I’ve said many times before, having Luck gives us a chance to win any game and a legitimate chance to win the division. The decision to focus on youth probably means that we won’t play quite as well as we would have with a bunch of free agent vets in the short term, but is a much better long term strategy.

On the WR issue, I'll just say that WR was way down the list of priorities this last offseason. While Grant's contract was for one year, I've always viewed it as sort of a "show me" contract where he could earn a second Colts contract if he played well, so I personally don't think Ballard was holding a place for a rookie. And let's not forget that Ballard did draft a couple of WRs.

Not sure why you bring up LBs. Leonard is a star and Walker has been great as well. If you got your wish and we addressed this issue in free agency, are you concerned at all that we perhaps wouldn't have ever drafted Leonard?

Lastly, your point about the team’s record is completely off base. The numbers absolutely do NOT back up your point – Racehorse’s post illustrated this perfectly. We were outscored 222 to 119 in the first seven games last year! We were thoroughly smoked by the better teams we played, and were only able to eke out victories against two of the worst teams in the league. The gap between our team and the better teams in the league has shrunken dramatically since last year, as evidenced by our performance in the games this year – we nearly beat the SB champs in their own stadium! By virtually any measurable statistic, we have improved by leaps and bounds over last year. And by the way, the improvement is on both offense and defense, so it’s certainly not all attributable to Luck. If your eyes don’t tell you this, and all you can see is our 2-5 record, then you need better glasses.

As to this last point, I should also mention that if you acknowledge that the talent level on the team has greatly increased, but your criticism is that the record doesn’t reflect this, then perhaps your beef is with Reich rather than Ballard. That would be another discussion, and another one where I would disagree with you, but it has no place in a discussion about Ballard’s performance.

I don’t remember ever complaining about letting Melvin walk, only how young and thin Ballard left the position.

I agree with the first point - Ballard decided to take his lumps. I also agree it’s consistent with his strategy, but it’s one I disagree with. Does it equate to “sacrificing the season”? That one decision? No. That philosophy spread across the roster? Yes, to me it does.

Agreed. And it’s why having the same record as last year illustrates my point. The single biggest factor in the Colts winning football games last year did not play. Do you think if Luck played last year the Colts finish 4-12? I sure as hell don’t. Do you think they would have finished 4-12 last year if they had this coaching staff instead of Pagano’s? I sure as hell don’t. So why the hell do you and Race keep harping on the fact the team looks better than last year? They fucking should!! They have a franchise QB playing instead of one acquired 6 days before his first start and they have a competent coaching staff. If you made no other changes than those two they would have won several more games IMO and if nothing else looked like a competent football team. Do you disagree?


Finally, we agree on my first point. Ballard’s consistent strategy for building the team is the primary reason the Colts are 2-5. Yes they look better. Yes they perform better in many ways. But they have had a hard time winning. That’s a pretty damn accurate description of what happens with a youth movement in any sport I’m aware of. And it’s been the complaint I’ve had since I noticed it that you and several others have told my I’m wrong about. You admit you expected a better record. Race admits he expected a better record. Yet you both consistently tell me how I’m wrong and the facts don’t back me up. Then point to last years identical record and say, but we look better so therefore you are wrong. No, this is exactly what I expected. The team should look better. Just bring back Luck, switch the coaching staff, and make no other changes and the team would look significantly better. Stats would be better. That’s what good to great QB play and competent coaching will do. It’s why they are such huge factors in team success.

See now we disagree again. I absolutely agree that just signing old aging vets isn’t the solution, but let’s not pretend there is no middle ground. Adding several appropriately aged vets does not keep you from building a core. Players earning their spots, competing and learning from some vets doesn’t keep them from developing. Quite the contrary. In my view it’s one of the best ways to establishing a winning culture. Ballard has preached competition but his method and your description of his process seem to indicate it isn’t completely real. He doesn’t want a better player taking reps from Moore or Hairston. That’s not competition or a winning culture in my book.

I disagree that WR wasn’t a priority. It’s certainly wasn’t #1 and I’ll concede there were a lot of holes to fill, but WR2 was a glaring hole on the roster. I disagree on the contract simply because it was for one year with no team option. I said it when it was signed - I’d have rather paid more for this year (considering the cap space) to buy a team option for a second year. If Grant would have broken out after playing with Luck, how do you gauge his value for that 2nd contract? He would want to get paid equal to his performance. I don’t see Ballard over paying him for one good year, do you? So the chances of Grant being on the next year were slim. Either he sucks and is therefore replaced or he is so good the team doesn’t resign him. There is very little middle ground available where he performs at a level he doesn’t need replaced but doesn’t want a bigger contract than Ballard will pay after one year. That’s why I see him as a place holder.

Yes, he drafted some guys late. Again, Grant is a place holder for Cain or a draft pick next year.


I’ll disagree that Walker has been great. I’ll admit he’s certainly not the biggest issue though.

Am I worried that we would have passed on Leonard if we had signed LB help in free agency? No, not at all. Nor am I really worried that he would have been stuck behind a vet. I expect Ballard to find and draft talented players - I do not specifically advocate drafting for need. I also expect the coaching staff to identify talent, develop players, and get them on the field. That seems like standard team operations to me.

I’ll state again - by virtue of adding a franchise QB and a competent coaching staff the team damn well should look better! And I agree they do. And they are certainly more fun to watch. As I said, the results we see are typical of a young team. To some degree you’ve admitted that and admitted they haven’t won as much as you thought they would. That’s pretty much my point.

No, Ballard put the roster together and I’m mostly seeing what I expected to from the roster construction. I’m happy and surprised in the outcome of certain areas (like Leonard), but the overall outcome is what I expected. You were the one expecting more wins and happy with the roster makeup. Sounds like you are the one that should have an issue with Reich.

Through 7 games, here is the point differential for the Colts:

2017: -103
2018: +4

I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point, but your focus on the team being 2-5 on October 24, 2018 is not only an invalid metric, it misses the bigger picture of what's going on with this franchise.

wow.

I’m not focused on the 2-5 record. I’ve not shit talked the team or been a troll in game threads. I have never called for Ballard’s firing. And I have never said he isn’t going to get the team back to contending status. I’ve simply said his approach is slower than it needs to be and this season is a casualty of it. I’ve been told I was wrong since before the season started by people who now admit they expected a better record, but still want to tell me how wrong I am. Even though this is largely what I expected.

But you've used the team's 2-5 record as both justification and validation for your argument. The 2-5 record so far in 2018 is immaterial to the broader objective of getting this organization another Lombardi ASAP.

As I said before, I don't completely disagree with your take that the rebuild could be done faster; just don't throw out meaningless stats, act like they're significant, and not expect me to call you out on it. It detracts from other valid points in your argument.

How is the record not valid? If the team was 5-2 I’d clearly be wrong, right? The whole point is young teams have a hard time consistently winning. They do things like hold on 3rd and 26 giving up an automatic first down. They make mental errors to extend drives or drop easy catches on 3rd and 4 in OT. That kind of thing is true for any sport I follow. I don’t bring up 2-5 to say the team sucks or say no progress has been made. It’s relevant because it’s the exact result of my point - the team is better is most ways, but it hasn’t translated to wins. How else do you explain what you, Race, and Chaka are telling me? That almost all stats say this is a significantly better team, yet the record still says they are one of the worst teams in the league. I don’t believe they are one of the worst teams in the league. That’s why I disagree with the chosen path.

Maybe because we have lost close games in a sport that has the well-named phrase "any given Sunday" as its selling point. Also, two of those five losses were against the participants in the last SB.

That is one way to look at it. The other is that bringing in vets is a short term approach. It usually does not translate to long term success.

Good teams use guys like Mike Adams all the time as filler for a few years. I like it

I like fillers, when they work out. They don't stay long, though, which was my point.

Of all the WR's on the roster, how many beyond T.Y. figure to be long-term fixtures here? It's the one position that even Ballard has pointed to as saying that it will be addressed. Those who are currently there will have to make room for future upgrades. So all of this supposed developing the younger talent likely excludes those who are seeing time this season.

As far as who else could've been brought in to stabilize the position, how about John Brown? He may be a bit too similar to T.Y. but another speed burner who has been in the league and seems to be able to catch the ball AND signed with the Ravens for just one year @ 6 mil doesn't seem like he would've disturbed the delicate science being used to create the desired culture around these parts. Maybe Grant doesn't want to sign here if Brown also signs here, but such an "if" doesn't matter now and it was just a "for instance" anyway. Point is, it's silly to talk about gaining experience and culture and reps and...when a position relevant to all of that rosy future talk is going to have at least one, likely two new players this time next year. So instead of hoping to get another veteran who may not be as likely to run through a defender on a rub route, you develop a player who could very well be cut without a second thought next season. It just seems a bit too weighted toward "maybe these guys will turn into something, but more likely we'll be sitting pretty again on draft day" for a team in such a crappy division.

I would disagree with you. I believe teams use short term vets all the time, although I guess it depends on your definition of short term.

I think many are scarred by Grigson’s reign. I’ve said before, and I know most will disagree, there was no problem with Grigson’s strategy, but there were major issues with his execution. Even with mostly mediocre acquisitions in free agency the team made a quick turnaround and was in an AFC title game. The main issue was Grigson sucked at drafting and no young talent was taking over starting spots.

If Ballard drafts as poorly as Grigson he will fail. There is not a team building strategy in existence that doesn’t require good drafting to sustain success.

I agree that teams use short term veterans all the time. And I think the Colts should and will use them. We just disagree about using them when you are in full rebuild. I like what Ballard is doing and I like the results so far. It is pretty obvious we are building a foundation thru both lines So far so good. Portends good for us Freaks

I agree with much of what you wrote. I was referring to rebuilding teams and not established ones. Teams like GB and NE can put in fillers to play, but Washington and Oakland get burnt using that approach.

Ok, now I get your point – so all of the good stuff the Colts have accomplished this year is due to Luck’s return and the change in coaching staff. All the bad stuff – really just the 2-5 record – is due to Ballard’s misguided plan to use younger players in place of the Hankins, Simons and Andersons of the world. Do I have it about right?

The problem with this theory is that, again, it isn’t supported by the facts. The Colts improvement isn’t limited to the offense – as I’ve posted previously, statistically this group of young defenders is outperforming last year’s squad by a large margin in almost every category (actually it is in EVERY category I’ve looked at, but I’ll say “almost every category” because I can’t say I’ve looked at all of them). I suppose this was just as you predicted too, right? That’s why your railed against Ballard’s decisions to get rid of Hankins and the others?

And you really have mischaracterized my points regarding how the team has “looked”. This isn’t a subjective eyeball assessment like you treat it – it’s apparent from the hard numbers, whether you look a points scored, points given up, sacks, turnovers - whatever. Those are undeniable, but you ignore this stuff in favor of vague ideas that we could have signed “someone” who could have improved the team.

Of course we could have signed players who, in retrospect, would have helped out. But then I could be like you and simply respond by saying “we could have signed some bad players who would have made our defense worse and could have destroyed the culture Ballard is trying to create”. Then we can both stare at each other and say nothing, because both statements are true, so long as we keep it vague. That’s why if you’re going to make this type of argument, you should back it up with examples of the players you’re referring to. Look at the CB free agent list for 2018 and tell me who you think the Colts should have signed. You'll see that the list is much more treacherous than you might realize.

And what makes you so certain the Colts would have drafted Leonard had they picked up a few free agent LBs? Isn’t it possible at least that they would have turned their draft focus somewhere else – perhaps CB for example?

I’ve "admitted" they haven’t won as much as I thought they would, no question, but so what? The point is that they’ve improved dramatically from last season – both on offense and defense – and its validated Ballard's approach. The 2017 Colts never held a team to 5 points, not even the Browns, who were the worst team in the league last year (they scored 28 off of Hankins and the D). I’m guessing that if the 2018 Colts had accomplished their improvements by way of a bringing in a bunch of Mike Adams-like free agents, you’d now be trumpeting the masterful success of that plan. But because it was accomplished in a way that was different than you preferred, you have to explain it away by saying its all Luck and the coaching change. But it's simply not true, no matter how much you want it to be. Give credit where credit is due.

Statistically comparing last years team to this years team isn’t fair. Chuck pagano was arguably the worst coach in the history of the nfl.

At the end of the day, I can't think of one player that Ballard let go, that would have made a difference in the win column.

This team isn't losing due to a lack of talent. They lose because youth makes mistakes, and believe it or not Reich still hasn't shed the team of the stench of Pagano.

What I mean by that is, not every player has totally lost the bad habits of the past, that Pagano kissed them on the cheek for.

I disagree that this team doesn’t lack talent. I think this team absolutely lacks talent.

Don't think that's what he's saying. Every team lacks talent somewhere. He's saying lack of talent isn't the main reason they've lost games. Meaning the team has enough talent to win and it's been in-game mistakes that have been the problem. Now you can argue that point either direction.

With all due respect to Dam and his position, I do believe coaches are important so I think you raise a fair point. Not sure how much Pagano dictated the defense last year as we had a coordinator (Monachino) but, before you say it, I'm not saying Monachino was anything special either.

Regardless, I'll agree that stats shouldn't be the entire picture, and can certainly be influenced by a coach's decision making. But stats are nevertheless concrete information that can help anchor opinions in reality. It's certainly fair and smart to supplement that info from other sources. Generally speaking, I personally prefer objective data to eyeball assessments, unless the person providing the eyeball assessments has a proven track record, or those their assessments are described in some way can be verified (for example, the running series of articles on Stampede Blue which analyze a player's performance through a series of videos isolating the player's role over several plays). Sometimes I even ask you for your thoughts on a particular Colts player, because over time I've read lots of your posts on the site and I think your comments are pretty insightful.

With regard to the issue at hand, I guess I'd point out in response that none of the people who left the team are currently being coached by Pagano, and none are tearing up the league right now (Anderson's done reasonably well I guess). So I'm not convinced that their performance last year was out of character for them, and I still think the stats they generated last year are a reasonably good indicator of their skill level.

Actually knowing my position would be helpful here, because it does not disagree with your statement. My position is and always has been that the importance of coaching lies in player development, and that the impact of coaching on gameday is negligible. Reich and his staff are an excellent example of this. In my opinion, and the opinion of most here, they've done a great job, yet the team is 2-5. It also has several young players that appear to be budding stars, and several surprise good players like Hunt and Ebron who are castoffs from other teams. The coaching staff has done very well at player development, and yet because the team doesn't have the talent level of some teams (and has had more than their fair share of injuries), if you were to look at the record as the sole point of evaluation, you'd say Reich and his staff are doing poorly. This has been, is, and will continue to be my point on the matter. Coaches won't actually make the difference on gameday. Evidence continues to mount supporting this point.

You are skewing your perception of the "evidence" to make it fit your argument. You even admitted that this team has had more than it's fair share of injuries. If our injury situation wasn't as ridiculous as it has been, we would probably be at 4 wins at the very least right now. Coaching absolutely matters on game day. You need talented players and you need coaches who can scheme and call plays to put those players in the best possible position to use their talent. Pagano's dumb ass had no idea how to do that.

Chaka, I see no reason to continue this conversation. The point to me seems pretty fucking simple - inexperienced teams have a hard to winning consistently. You’ve said they probably haven’t won as much so far because of their youth, but can’t get it through your head that’s that’s my primary point. I simply don’t see a reason to be so young and / or thin at certain spots to start the season. There is nothing in your mind that could allow the team to be 4-3 or 5-2 at this point and still have Leonard, Nelson and a slew of young players with upside. To you as soon as you bring in another vet at LB (doesn’t matter which of the 3 positions) Leonard disappears from the team. You are happy with 110% of Ballard’s moves and I’m happy with probably 85% of them. Somehow that means I give him no credit for anything.

I’ve told you I won’t play the “tell me who” game. I know exactly how that goes. If Ballard hadn’t signed Ebron and I now identified him as a target you’d have 15 reasons we couldn’t have signed him, he wouldn’t help, and / or he would just hold back Swoope’s development. If I had identified Mitchel as a player that could help this team (I wouldn’t have) before he was signed would you have agreed? Fuck no you wouldn’t have! But here he is helping the team win. So no, I won’t play that BS game with you. I’ve already kept Leonard from being drafted. I sure as hell don’t want to get TY cut by improving a shitty WR core.

I’ve said I like the team. I like the progress. I like Ballard. I expect him to get the team back to contender status. I like the coaching staff. I like the majority of the individual players. I simply don’t agree with the depth of the youth movement. I believe (as you have said) that it has cost us games this year. You see the fact they were in a lot of close games as progress. I don’t disagree. But I also see it as proof they could be sitting at 4-3 or 5-2 with small improvements in some areas. Like WRs that can catch. I see the fucking progress, I’m in no way trying to minimize it. Yes I expected progress with the return of a franchise QB and a competent coaching staff. That doesn’t mean I don’t also see the progress in other areas. I’ve said I do. Because I see and expected progress is the reason I only agree with 85% of Ballard’s moves. If I thought everything sucked and had to be burnt down I would, like you, agree with Ballard 100%.

That’s it. I’m done with this conversation. I don’t troll and I don’t criticize every Ballard move. I simply state my opinion. It’s stated. You disagree. Time to move the hell on.

Sorry, no offense intended, I meant it to be more of a joke given how much debate that issue has generated here. Not trying to beat that dead horse any further.