Doesn’t have to be home grown but obviously that is ideal. Since rookie contracts are cheap and the best way to gain talent.

When you have a great qb, 3 drafts and a shit ton of cap space should put you in a position to compete with the best. How could it not be?

I wouldn't write off the prospect of us making the playoffs this year. I am not expecting to win big by any stretch of the imagination, but our division is so weak that we could yet sneak into the playoffs. The goal has to be to be a legitimate superbowl contender though, which we all realise is a long way off just yet.

Not really. He doesn’t want any thoughts or opinions until the year is over

I certainly understand the gut-level feeling that Ballard missed an opportunity by not using the Colts available cap space - I mean, he had something like $50 million, why didn't he spend it? - but I don't think this thinking holds up to further scrutiny.

First, and as I’ve mentioned in many prior posts, it’s important to remember that the cap space hasn’t disappeared, so in that sense we haven’t lost any opportunities. The Colts will be free to use this cap space in the future, and will now have a competitive advantage over other teams since we have more that everyone else. So I think much of the fan frustration comes from the fact that people see other teams signing big name free agents, and get impatient want something to happen NOW without thinking long term. It’s fun to sign free agents!

One of great things about Ballard, at least in my view, is his resistance to these types of temptations. Generally speaking, you usually don’t get very far just following the herd – you need to find and exploit inefficiencies in the system (i.e. Moneyball) to get ahead. The inefficiency Ballard seems to have identified is financial discipline/wasting cap space. Here’s a quote he provided back in March at the outset of free agency:

“Financial discipline in this league, you don’t see that like you used to. I think it’s a good thing to have. Because what happens is these guys are re-tooling the roster every two years. You are signing all these free agents and then two years from now, you are seeing them all get cut and then they are back on the street again.”

Grigson seemed to have a more traditional view – aggressively add talent via free agency to maintain your competitiveness. I’m not sure he started this way, but I think he was a victim of his own early success, and bought in to his own press clippings about how great he was after the Luck/Hilton draft. Then, to try to maintain his early image, he got caught in the cycle of adding a bunch of older vets (like Cherilus, Landry, Donald Thomas, Heyward-Bey, Art Jones, Gore, Johnson). The double whammy was that his college talent evaluation was deficient after the Luck/Hilton draft (see. Werner, Dorsett, Green, D'Joun Smith, Trent Richardson trade, etc.). Eventually the whole thing collapsed on him. If Ballard stays true to his vision I don’t think that kind of thing will happen here.

The bottom line is it’s not all that different from fantasy football in the sense that every team has a set amount of money to spend, and the goal is to make the most of it. In this context, almost all good QBs are underpaid given their enormous influence on the outcome of games, so when you have one like Luck you keep them and you’ll automatically have a competitive advantage over most other teams. You can then go about assembling the rest of the team with your remaining cap space. Typically, if you sign a bunch of high end free agents you’ll quickly run out of cap space, just like in fantasy football.

So to succeed you need to develop your own players for at least two reasons: (1) rookie contracts are really good deals for teams and leave you with extra cap space to work with elsewhere, and (2) you usually can’t get elite players through free agency because their teams usually sign them before they hit the market, so you have to develop them internally. What’s left in free agency is a bunch of good players who demand to be paid like great players, a few disgruntled players, or formerly good players who are on the downside of their careers. Generally speaking, you don’t get great value with these type of players, which is why I think Ballard has referred to free agency as “fool’s gold.” The salary cap provides enough room to sign several of these players, but lots of teams overdo it thinking it can serve as a substitute for developing their own talent. It isn’t. Ballard views free agency as a supplement to home grown talent, but not a replacement. So he is focused on developing a group of young (and cheap) players, and once this is established will then look at free agency to add to those home grown players to put the Colts over the top. This whole strategy depends, of course, on his skill in drafting good players.

Related to this thinking, spending big on free agency is inconsistent with his plan to establish a team culture first. To me, this approach is more convincing on the defensive side of the ball, where we are primarily relying upon younger players. I think the culture on offense should mostly be already there given the established presence of vets like Luck, Hilton and Castonzo (I can’t speak to how much the culture of offense bleeds to the defense – I guess this would depend upon how much they interact on a daily basis). More from Ballard on this last March:

"We have to get some roster continuity with 10-to-12 players that are going to be Colts for a long time. Then you feel better about dipping into free agency and getting a guy. Not just good players, they need to be able to influence the locker room with their character. A culture needs to be built. A coach can do so much, but the players in that locker room build the culture that you want, with their work ethic, with the standards that they set. We have to get more players like that in our locker room."

So, bottom line, I understand the frustration with Ballard’s lack of spending on free agency to this point, and the desire for the immediate gratification that comes with it. However, I think patience will be rewarded and Ballard’s focus on a long term, sustainable approach will serve us well.

By the way, I did NOT intend this post to be so long, so I apologize.

There were players that could improve us. But by how much? And would they be here as part of a Super Bowl team? The object is not to be mediocre vs bad this year. I think the object is to find impact players to build around. I don't care about being 3-4 or even 4-3 this year. If those players could turn us into a 6-1 or 7-0 team (what this build is aiming for) sign me up. I wish someone would tell me who we should have spent money on to put us over the hump.

Chaka your passion is admirable but no one is reading all that shit. This isn't a 300 level English Comp class. FFS.

Experience? Does that no longer have value?

The idea that you have to spend 2-3 years drafting before any free agents have value is complete and utter BS. Signing free agents affects two things with the draft:

1) it increases competition for roster and, most importantly, starting spots. Is competition a bad thing now too?

2) it lowers your draft position by making you win more games. But when I have said Ballard has knowingly sacrificed wins this year (soft tank?) by his moves or that his methods were making the rebuild longer I’m certain you are one that has told me that’s not the case.

So other than decreasing competition or decreasing wins (and therefore increasing draft position) why do you think free agents keep you from building through the draft?

If an OT is clearly BPA in the 2019 1st round, I'm absolutely on board with that pick. Of course, I would prefer it to be a great pass rusher, but that's why I qualified it as BPA.

Then feel free to ignore it, but that's kind of the problem here. I see a lot of the same complaints over and over (Ballard's wasting Luck's best years, Ballard failed to spend on free agency, etc.), and unfortunately the explanation for why he might be doing this can't be laid out in a tweet-long response (or if it can, I'm not a skilled enough writer to do it).

I did.

I guess I am a nobody.....




Sigh...... :)




Walk Worthy,

I think they missed their chance with all those close losses the first month of the season. If they had 1-2 more wins at this point, I would like their odds a lot better. It'll probably take 9 wins to take the South. This team isn't good enough to go 8-2 over 10 games.

Nothing prevents using free agency, and I'm certain we will do so, but Ballard's made it clear that he wants to build an internal culture first.

I'll also ask you the same question that I've asked several others on this board in response to their complaints - it's easy enough to complain, but please be a bit more specific: who do you believe that Ballard should have signed from last year's available free agency pool that would have solved the problems you're complaining about?

Its possible to understand the reasons Ballard gives yet still disagree with them. I understand perfectly what Ballard says are the reasons. I also understand many that agreed with his methods didn’t expect to be sitting at 2-5 yet now act like of course this was the plan all along.

I won’t play the who should he have signed game. It’s a game that’s impossible to win and you know it. The team had the third pick in the draft last year and are currently 2-5. The idea there weren’t players available that could help this team is ridiculous.

I guess I’m just someone that believes it’s hard to build a winning culture through losing. And I believe experience counts. Especially when you also have a very inexperienced coaching staff.

Devil's advocate: aren't a lot of players getting experience this season when they would have been blocked by free agent vets? By last count, Colts had second most snap counts among rookies in the league.

Personally, I feel this team is leaps and bounds beyond last years' team. I only remember about 6 or 7 plays in the entire season last year to get excited about, but this year, they've been competitive in almost every game. Even the best teams have a game or two where they look bad, so I don't hold that against them. Another successful draft this spring and some key free agent signings and this team will return to the top of the division and in the hunt for the Super Bowl. And, along the way, they'll be fun to watch and that's good enough for me.

I see your point and I think it is valid. For me the weight of the argument lands on the side of doing what Ballard is doing but it’s not like it’s 100%. It’s close enough that you could absolutely turn out to be correct. As far as our record goes, I was never concerned about it for this year. I wanted improvements, especially along the offensive line. If the line wasn’t gelling with all that Ballard has thrown at it I believe you would have a legitimate bitch. He threw resources at it and he did a damn good job of fixing it. Add to the fact that we actually are getting to the quarterback without blitzes and for the first time almost ever we have a defense that creates turnovers. I’m very pleased at where we are and at in this rebuild

Competing just because we are in a shitty division isn't much to brag about. I would rather them build the team to where we can compete for championships for the longer term, not just AFC south divisions.

But no matter what you're competing for, it takes more than a year or two to overhaul a team and build it correctly. They changed defensive and offensive systems. They have to retool the roster not only for talent, but also for fits for that scheme, and that takes time. The fact that in year two people are complaining that it's not quick enough is just ridiculous, and like I mentioned, this was the first year with their own scouting staff and info from that.

You've been pretty critical of Ballard. He's made mistakes here and there, but from the looks of it, he had a very solid draft in his first one with his own staff. I think he'll ramp up things in free agency now that there is a better core on this team.

Everyone is polarized these days. The truth is, outside of Spike (who is known to go off the emotional deep end before reeling it back in) no one is calling for Ballard to be fired. Everyone wants him to succeed.

What gets obnoxious is the attempts to shout down arguable criticism. Ballard has made some good moves/non-moves, and some bad ones. Some of the moves/non-moves that seemed to be bad are showing signs that perhaps they were actually good. Some of us on either side will be wrong, and if we are grown-ups we will admit it. Ballard's plan will take time, and it is fun to discuss and debate while we wait to see how it goes.

What isn't fun is dealing with arguments like "You're just a hater" or "Go root for another team if you hate the Colts so much" or "There's a reason he's a GM and you're just a guy typing on a computer". These 'arguments' are lazy bullshit.

1 - Criticism is not hate. It is largely born out of a desire to see the team do well, and overcome the same pitfalls that plague them every year.

2 - GMs and other "professionals" make dumbass decisions all the time. The Raiders gave Gruden a 10 year guaranteed contract. Gruden traded Mack away and then complained that pass rushers are hard to find. The Cowboys gave Gruden a 1st for a fake WR1 with bad hands on his way to being a bust. Ryan Grigson was a GM for 5 years. Matt Millen was a GM. The Browns themselves have dozens of examples of professionals that sucked and got fired. The Giants are a mess because of bad decisions by their coaching staff and front office. The Seahawks were almost a dynasty but they got rid of good players and now they suck.

"Appeal to Authority" is literally a logical fallacy and therefore is a bad and dumbass argument every time.

Everyone here is a Colts fan. We can argue. I can call you a dipshit and you can call me a fag and we will be fine because we are all still Colts fans that want to see the team do well. Disagreement is just part of the deal. It's a lot easier to disagree when we are winning and it suddenly seems a lot more serious and emotional when we suck. But it's just a football discussion board. Debate ideas, and if you want name call like children. But trying to silence each other seems like the wrong road to take.

People care so they get pissed. Gotta love that there is a place like this for us to hang out

As of now, I'm expecting us to sneak out a win in this division by going on a winning streak. And then we'll have a healthy team and shock everyone by crunching the Patriots in Foxborough.

It’s a valid question. My thinking is that guys should get on the field when they earn it. If you are trying to build a winning culture isn’t that a huge part of it? And it’s a huge part of coaching to be able to identify the guys that deserve to be on the field or show them why they aren’t good enough yet.

Either way, rarely can you both give young guys tons of time and win. And that’s where I feel like Chaka and a few others are simply being intellectually dishonest. The goal posts keep getting moved. Ballard sacrificed this season to get all of these young guys time, several clearly before they are ready. And he unnecessarily held other positions open to do it again next year. If you are fine with that, that’s ok. I just disagree. But it would be nice if guys quit denying that’s what happened.

It all depends on what you want out of the season whether you think Ballard sacrificed it. I want Super Bowl wins so to me anything that isn't part of getting us there is a sacrifice. To me, signing players so we can better, maybe be the worst team in the playoffs at best, is something I'm not interested in so to me Ballard sacrificed nothing. Let me also be clear that I would love to be the worst team in the playoffs this year. Difference to me is that if we do it this year it will be with young players who should be getting better, not veterans who are playing the best they ever will.

1) Look up my preseason predictions and my take on what they did in UFA. I have never moved the goal posts on what 2018 is about. Development & Evaluation. The team's record is secondary.
2) I never denied that's what happened, and if you've listened to Ballard, he told you this was his plan since the end of last season.

Your strategy is perfectly fine, but so is Ballard's. It all comes down to execution. It's way too early to know for sure.

Why draft them if your not going to give them a chance? Might as well trade all your picks for FA's

Why keep any player not on a rookie contract? Just trade away all good players over 25 for draft picks and bring in young players every year. Cap space forever, building culture forever.

Wait that sounds almost as dumb as your post, nevermind.

No question you are right - you are perfectly entitled to disagree with the approach, and I think you have defended your position well. I don't really get the last sentence of your post, if it was directed at me. I've never conceded that the "plan all along" was to be 2-5 or anything close to it. My expectation was (and remains) that while we might sacrifice some minor short term potential improvement by not signing a bunch of free agents, the long term benefits are well worth it and the Colts should nevertheless be competitive in all of the games they played. I think this has largely been true.

I am disappointed by the 2-5 current record, but the record doesn't tell the whole story and I haven't given up hope for this year. I assume you’ve seen the same games as me – do you think we’re watching a 2-5 team? (and please don’t quote Parcells on me). I think they’re better than that, and potentially a LOT better than that, but I’m not going to lose any sleep over it because I think we’re on the right track even if our record isn’t that great at the moment.

I disagree, and I’m not trying to trap you into some sort of logic game. I simply think its incomplete to simply complain without offering a solution - empty complaints are just expressions of frustration, easy to make but not very convincing from an analysis standpoint.

To answer your comment, there are ALWAYS players who are available that could have helped almost any team, but the trick is finding them. You’re more likely to make a mistake, and free agency mistakes can be extremely costly (yet another reason to focus on developing your own players). Ballard’s track record on his free agency signings has been pretty good – not a lot of splashy free agents signed, but a high percentage of them have been significant contributors.

As far as "experience" if concerned, what kind of experience are you referring to? That's a buzz word that doesn't have a lot of meaning without context. Not all experience is the same, and some of it is quite bad. Are you talking about the kind of "experience" that Le'Veon Bell or Terrell Pryor bring? What about Matt Slauson or Denico Autry experience?

This is the kind of stuff I go through every Sunday at 12:30 pm. That's just the kind of fan i would like to be. If sports fans were logical we would all be Rams fans.

Do I really think we will win the division, well, no, but it's not as if it's completely impossible.

Because I don't agree with you I'm intellectually dishonest? That's silly - I always try to explain my position in terms of actual information. Please point out my prior posts where you think I'm not being forthright or "moving the goalposts" on you. My position has always been that a healthy Luck gives us a chance to win almost any game - perhaps our chances could be slightly improved by signing a bunch of free agents, but I'll trade a few extra mistakes in exchange for the long term benefits that I think following Ballard's plan will bring.

And by the way, what players is Ballard playing "clearly before they are ready"? It appears to me that the areas of greatest concern are those that are manned largely by players that have been in the league for several years: CB and WR. Most of the rookies have performed admirably, and a review of the stats reveals that our defense is actually far better statistically than it was with all of the old guard you argued so strongly that we should have kept (Hankins, etc.). Despite our 2-5 record, we've actually scored more points (189) than we've given up (185).

Simply put, while your comments often reflect commonly held sentiments about the Colts, they aren't supported by the facts. Now THAT is intellectually dishonest, and that's why I've been pressing you to provide me with real-world information that we can all analyze in support of your position.

We weren't close to competing last year in a shitty division. Now we are becoming less shitty. And the team has some excitement. Last years colts were more predictable than a year old calendar.

Now I about pooped my pants when Luck was leading the way on the double reverse, but it was cool when he check up and realized, HOLY FUCK what am I DOING???????

I like watching this team win or lose this year. It's fun, they put it all out there. Last year was god awful

So put away logic, reason and facts. Ok, I can roll with that.

Yeah, Nate Solder has turned the Giants around. Well, he's turned Eli, around as in LOOK OUT ELI!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chaka, I’ll apologize for the intellectual dishonesty comment. I did go back and reread some of your posts and while your comments lead me to believe you expected better than 2-5 at this point you haven’t specifically stated such. My memory apparently let me down again and I do apologize.

As to the rest I’ll comment shortly when I get a chance, but I did want to get the apology posted.

I was referring to what RM posted about not developing players

What the fuck is so illogical with wanting the colts to field the best team possible? Or not liking losses to the Texans and jets? The fact is we are 2-5 and you want to act like that is some fucking accomplishment.

Don’t sit on the fucking fence and ridicule people for having opinions.

To annoy you. You really fucked up sometime in the last year for me to show up and bother you. This is Karma. I should just change my name to Karma. I'm here because you want to rule a message board and discourage anyone who disagrees with you force them to join you on your tiny love me island.

What? Too much truth? DOH!

Here's the thing. That was last year, this is NOW.

I like Ballard. He took the leap. The leap of faith that Luck would return and be, well, LUCK. What, I've got to keep Pagano? Ok, that won't stop me.

Now he's got two drafts and the talent looks really good. And the guys he keeps finding to plug into the gaps that have kept forming. He wanted his dream, he had a chance here and JUMPED into the abyss that was the Colts QB shit storm. I don't know what goes on in Jim Irsay's brain (who does), but he stuck Ballard with a terrible head coach and he took it on. Last year was so bad, even I could tell you what play was coming and I don't know squat about coaching.

That was then, this is NOW!

Yeah, the Colts have lost more games than they have won. But they didn't take it right between the eyes, they made every team bust their ass to beat them.

I don't give a damn about last year. There is a new coach and he's going to roll the dice and throw caution to the wind. WHY NOT? What's the worst that can happen? They lose. They have been doing that. Now they will learn how to win. And you don't do that by playing safe.

You can have an opinion. I am not forced to accept it. It's a right insured by the Constitution of the United States.

Oh, and I'm not sitting on a fence. I agree with Ballard's methods

Very cool of you to say, but unnecessary as I took no real offense at your comments even if my response sounded like I did (getting across the right tone in writing is always difficult – I guess that’s what emojis are for, but I can’t bring myself to use them).

I can save you the trouble of looking through my old posts – whether I said it or not, I did expect the Colts to be better than 2-5 by now. But I don’t think I’ve said anything since then that’s inconsistent with that. I am disappointed by the record, and I think we’re better than that. I never felt this year had to be a rebuilding year where we just had to accept the fact we’d have a losing record, particularly since we have the best QB in the division. Parcell’s famous statement that “you are what your record says you are” sounds nice coming from him, but it’s not true – particularly over a period of seven games. There is a world of difference between the Colts and the Bills, even though they have the same W-L record at this point. Just look at the game last Sunday.

That said, I’m looking forward to your response to my comments.

Frank was Mic'd up for the Buffalo game and on the Colts site on Facebook they posted excerpts from the game. If you have a chance, look it up....it's very cool....includes his chit chat w/Jim Kelly before the start of the game.....Anyway, on the Play you mention above, when Andrew comes off the field he says to Frank..."I wanted to punch it in" and Frank says, "If you'd have tried I would have body slammed you. You made the right decision". It was cute....the two of them seem to have a nice chemistry.