Colts sign Matt Slauson
 

Terms aren't released yet, or at least I can't find them.

Any help on that o-line is welcome.

Walterfootball has him as the 5th rated free agent guard:

http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2018G.php

McGlynn 2.0.

I thought Ballard wanted no stop gaps??

I'm good with this, it's a bit on the conservative side perhaps, but its a starting guard and depth behind Kelly if his injuries keep becoming a trend.

There's the guard everyone wanted. Hopefully there's less "sky is falling" mentality around here now.

Well not the one everyone wanted, but certainly the position everyone wanted addressed.

That was more what I meant. Looks like Ballard is trying to address offensive needs through free agency, which I really hope means he's going to focus the draft on defense.

1 year, $3m

Not liking all the one year deals. Have to do something with the OL so it’s hard to bitch to much, but like Grant (and Desir) just another stop gap bargain addition.

Don't take your hard hat off just yet ... :cool:

that sure as fuck isn't the guard anyone wanted.

i thought the same thing

He probably isn't very good anymore. I don't get Ballard's strategy.

That's easy Fat, he is going to build the Colts thru the draft, in doing so he is tanking the next few years, that's why all these 1 and 2 year contracts.

I disagree. I don't think Ballard intends to tank any seasons. In my view, he's trying to do three things: (1) reshape the roster that better fits the planned offensive and defenses schemes the Colts intend to employ, (2) utilize contract structures that incentivize the players to maximize their on-field performance, and (3) manage the Colts' cap situation to maximize the team's flexibility.

Implementing this strategy (particularly the first part) may necessarily cause some temporary weaknesses at certain positions - such as releasing Hankins - but I think he believes the Colts will be stronger and leaner (from a cap perspective) when this is complete. It also may cause the Colts to lose out on some of the big name free agents, since they aren't necessarily interested in the type of contract the Colts will want to use and will have better options elsewhere, but I'm guessing that in most instances Ballard believes the second or third best option is a better value for his strategy anyways. Presumably, he's keeping the Colt's ammo dry for when a truly great free agent option presents itself, and in those circumstances maybe he'd be willing to stray from the his normal approach. But paying Moncrief $9-11M or Melvin $10M+ a year (I know he only got $6.5M, but reports are that he wanted this from the Colts) probably isn't smart and certainly not consistent with this approach.

It takes some guts to do this, because he's being roundly criticized in the media and by fans, but I think he's shown he's a strong leader and believes in what he's trying to accomplish. And I really think its premature to criticize this offseason until it's over.

Good post.

You should post more often!

Walk Worthy,

We better be looking for another franchise QB because this one isn't going to survive the half a decade this is going to take. IF it it pans out

I've actually advocated for building through the draft, but they should sell off Luck to expedite the process, this is just backwards. Ballard is writing off the next three years at least, why keep Luck?

The Hankins move and Melvin moves were stupid, you ADD players to existing core.

Agreed. That was a good post. Probably makes too much sense for most in this forum, but good nonetheless.

Keep posting!

Good post. Just to add one more aspect that I think factors into Ballard's strategy: he wants playing time for the young guys that he brings in. Guys will learn the most by playing, so I think he's keeping the roster flexible so that they can allocate playing time right away to guys that they think will be key contributors down the road.

Slausen has more of a track record, but this is probably fair to a certain extent.

I agree with most of this, but if he's waiting for an elite free agent to present themselves, there's one on the market that he's not going after right now who's a perfect schematic fit for what Eberflus wants to do.

I don’t think this is true at all. To begin with, neither free agency nor the draft is complete, so you don’t really know what the team will look like on opening week of the season. You are panicking. There are all sorts of opportunities out there – restricted free agents, trades, draft etc. Yes, most of the big names are gone, but I don’t think these guys necessarily fit Ballard’s long term strategy anyway.

Second, Ballard isn’t writing off three years – he can’t in this era of free agency. In three years, many of his draft picks will be gearing up for their own free agency, and I think its critical to his strategy that a large proportion of the team continue to be on their rookie contracts.

Third, what do Hankins/Melvin have to do with Luck anyways? By your line of thinking, a weakened defense will actually protect Luck because he won’t be able to be on the field as much. So you should celebrate their absence! Regardless, the Hankins/Melvin decisions were undoubtedly driven by Ballard’s cost/benefit analysis. By not spending on them now, he can use their salaries later on players who better fit the schemes – and before you start talking about how much cap space they already have, remember that the cap minimums are judged on a four year basis. Even if he doesn’t spend the savings this year, he can still bank it for a later year to spend on our own free agents or on an outside free agent. The game is to maximize your cap currency, not simply to spend like a drunken sailor on leave – and that’s what I personally believe paying Melvin $10M+ would be a fair comparison to. Nice player, no question, but if you pay enough Melvins you won’t be able to pay the truly special players too - there’s always going to be Melvin/Moncrief/Grant types available, but it can be devastating to overpay them. To just complain that we lost Melvin or Hankins is meaningless unless you can also make the case that their salaries are justified as well. The two go hand in hand.

But is Suh a fit culture-wise? That would be my guess as to Ballard's thinking in this regard. You can agree or disagree with the approach, but Ballard has made it clear building team's culture is central to his strategy.

Personally I agree that this is largely Ballard’s intentions. I just don’t believe it necessary nor the ideal path to follow. And I think it’s a very blurry line as to whether or not it is tanking. I don’t think Ballard is actively attempting to lose games so I’d stop short of calling in that. But he is actively and knowingly throwing away multiple seasons and the draft capital that results from those losses figure heavily in his plans. I’d say he’s on the safe side of that description but just barely.

As far as him having the guts to do it I don’t really care. IMO he’s unnecessarily wasting seasons with a franchise QB. He’s decided on a 3-4 yr rebuild and if Luck gets killed or pissed in the process so be it. I don’t see it as guts, I see it as arrogance. He better kill the draft. He needs an even better showing than last year. We are in yr two of his rebuild and the holes on the roster have only expanded. Especially after he just cut his big free agent signing from last year.

Cap flexibility is great, but it doesn’t win football games or protect franchise QBs from Jacksonville’s pass rush. When Luck and his surgically repaired shoulder is getting killed next year hopefully he will be comforted in knowing Ballard maintained flexibility.

testcase doesnt understand logic, hurts his brain.

This is year two and it seems pretty obvious Ballard isn’t attempting to compete next year. By your own description of his process that is plainly clear. So is next year the magical year where he will be willing to use all of the cap flexibility he’s maintained at the expense of building a team and protecting his QB? I guess we’ll see but I’m pretty damn skeptical. I’m guessing we hear the same mantra next off season since we are going to still have tons of holes to fill and we won’t really know what we have in this years crop of rookies yet. Biggest jump in performance is typically between year one and two right? So we have to be patient and see what these guys become before we start throwing around cap space and actually signing guys.

I don’t understand why everyone that defends Ballard’s plan is so against admitting it’s a 3-4 year plan before they are truly competitive. I mean we are in year 2 and the roster is full of holes that will be manned next year by rookies. How can that not be a 3-4 year plan? If you agree with the method why can’t you admit what it is?

there is a difference in implementing a 3 year plan and "tanking" or "doing nothing" which some are claiming (bitching about)

The idea that it's too early to criticize the off-season, specifically free agency, makes no sense to me. Free agency moves fast. So fast the NFL created the assinine "legal tampering" period. And based on interviews I've read, teams and players still start talking earlier than they're supposed to.

Teams don't tamper with JAGs. They push for every advantage they can get to sign the best players in FA. What is it we are supposed to wait for before we develop an opinion on the moves the Colts do and don't make? There aren't more moves to be made. We whiffed on all the sure fire upgrades for the OL. All we could get was a 32 year old who apparently sucked at guard the last time he played there. At $3M for a single season, it doesn't appear he's expected to start. Maybe he'll get the chance to compete there, but is it likely? I've said it before, but it's clear Ballard knows the OL needs to be better. He wouldn't have tried to get Norwell, Jensen, or Pugh otherwise. Slauson isn't a solution to that problem. He's a "hopefully, but probably not".

Also don't see any reason to wait on anything related to releasing Hankins. There's nothing else to be decided there. Either you buy the idea that he can't play in our new defense or you don't.

Of course not, but it is to lose your freaking mind about what has or hasn't been done. Something you are clearly not doing.

That's just perception. The people with concerns think they're being rational and that those arguing against them are "Ballard ball washers" or "Pollyannas". And the people supporting Ballard's moves think they're being rational and that those with questions are "freaking out" and "bitching".

I don't think everyone questioning Ballards moves are freaking out.

Suh is interviewing teams to see if he agrees with their culture at this point. Even if he's not a culture fit (which I think he is because people tend to mature as they age), sometimes a player's talent is too great to ignore. The only better 3 tech in the NFL is Aaron Donald, and the Rams aren't letting him get away. The 3 tech is extremely important to what Eberflus wants to do defensively. So why no visit?

As I’ve said I wouldn’t specifically call Ballard’s plan tanking but it’s damn close enough that I won’t get pissed at someone seeing it that way.

And I see very few willing to admit that it is a 3-4 year plan. Hell Chaka lays out what is obviously a long term plan but refuses to admit that it basically writes off 3-4 years. I can understand why people buy into Ballard’s plan even though I don’t agree with it. What I can’t understand is those that try to have it both ways - claiming we aren’t writing off several years, but also refusing to acknowledge that Ballard has done little to nothing to get better while having significant resources to do so. And if your argument is he is getting better by adding a significant volume of draft picks then ok - but how is that not a long term plan?

If Suh is interviewing teams about a culture fit how in the world do you think the Colts would be even in his top 5? They were 4-12 last year. They’ve lost more talent so far this offseason than they’ve acquired. Their GM and coaching staff apparently have no flexibility or creativity (see Hankins release). And there GM isn’t planningbto be competitive for a couple more years. Why would Suh look here? The only reason Suh would consider the Colts is money. Money that Ballard has shown himself unwilling to spend.

Because money talks, the Colts have the most of it, and he'd have a chance to help shape the culture in Indianapolis.

To the best of my knowledge, no reason has been given as to why Hankins was released.

Can we speculate? Sure.

Fit scheme mismatch? Perhaps.

Money becoming guarented the next day? Perhaps but Colts have a ton of cap space.

However, do we know that Hankins did not asked to be released because of the scheme? Nope.

We have the end result and about 5% of the knowledge that formed that result.

Speculate all you want about how our unflexible coaches and GM are, but understand that it is all just speculation. Not fact.

Walk Worthy,

Ballard apparently said on Grady and Big Joe today that it was a scheme fit problem.

Pretty sure Irsay referenced the scheme change in a tweet about his release. And I don’t see him asking to be released after he lingered on the market last year and his previous defensive experience. But I suppose you are correct - I don’t know 100%. What I do know is that Ballard cut his signature free agent signing from last year a day before he had a large guarantee kick in. Regardless I’ll stand by my point - I don’t see the colts being attractive to Suh “culturally” unless they significantly overpay. Something Ballard has been unwilling to do.

Okay, well, then we apparently do have some inflexible coaches because while Hankins is not Dwight Freeney, both are talents that fit into whatever defensive scheme you end up running.

Denico Autry =/= Jonathan Hankins

Our interior is still "okay" but Hankins made it better:

NT = Woods, Stewart
UT = Anderson, Autry
Flex = Ridgeway

If the value is there I could see a draft pick at DT to challenge Stewart or Ridgeway for their position but I would also be good this season with addressing other spots on the defense (DE, LB, CB primarily).

Walk Worthy,

There must be more to it. In what world is Hankins less athletic or talented than Woods or Stewart? Either it was money (which makes little sense) or Hankins might've wanted out (he'll probably get a bump in pay and can sign w/a better team). Occam's Razor says it's probably option B, and that the cover story about scheme fit makes the Colts look better than "Our talented DT doesn't want to play here".

No way to know. But that is more believable to me than the idea that accomplished football people could say Hankins is a bad fit but Woods and Stewart aren't.