![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
I see a lot of people in the media are arguing that Ballard got it wrong, that he should have tagged Pierce and let Jones dangle his toes in free agency. The premise is that Jones, coming off an injury plagued season would ply his goods, learn that teams didn’t value him as highly as he valued himself, then slunk back to Indy, chastised, tail between his legs.
Personally, I think Ballard got it right, but I’m interested in what the rest of you think. I think that, if you don’t have a Quarterback, you don’t have anything. I think that, even with the injuries, Daniel Jones would have been the hottest name in free agency. If he had awakened this morning as a free agent, he would have been packing his bags, this afternoon. Someone would have offered up a mega million dollar contract, and no one from his camp would have bothered with the courtesy of inquiring whether the Colts might match it. In the NFL, teams don’t do the dirty work of negotiating contracts for other teams. When they negotiate with a free agent and reach a deal, they expect him to sign on the bottom line. That’s why it’s unlikely that Jones gains much traction in free agent talks with other teams. 31 teams know that, whatever the final number turns out to be, Ballard will suck it up and match. At this exact moment, it’s impossible to know just what these deals mean in terms of the cap. We presume, but don’t know that Jones will ink a new contract. We don’t know how Pierce’s deal is structured, what his first year cap number will be. Right now, after trading Pittman, they’re $23 Million, and change, under the cap. That will, of course, change when Pierce’s number emerges from the mist. That having been said, it’s hard to see much how advantage could have been gained from prioritizing Pierce. His new contract’s average annual value is $28.5 Million. The cost of tagging him would have been right around that number, so its a wash. Hanging the transition tag on Jones, however, might have saved us a bundle…depending on how it plays out. At the very most, we’re on the hook for $37 Million and change. Without the certainty of his return, Ballard, facing a hard deadline, might have caved and met his agent’s demand of $50 Million. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
There was no ‘good’ move as far as the Colts are concerned. What you say is true but it is also true that the team that was going to offer him mega millions can still do so and hamstring us financially if we decide to match. This is a bed that Ballard made.
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
In the last ten years, no player tagged with the transition has changed teams. Only one, Kyle Fuller, even received an offer from another club. As far as this being a bed Ballard made, a dozen other General Managers would love to hop into that bed. |
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kray007 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Agreed. I just don't think it is a compliment to say he is better than 12 out of 32 general managers in the NFL. To me you made my point
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Just how good Ballard is is a question that’ll play out over the next few seasons. He finally has a Quarterback, and the test will be how well he juggles the cap and adds enough talent to propel the team into legit Super Bowl contention. |
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kray007 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to rm1369 For This Useful Post: | ||
Oldcolt (03-09-2026) | ||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Philosophy has nothing to do with his inability to find an upper echelon Quarterback. Most successful GM’s stumble onto one, then get labeled a genius because luck gobsmacked them in the face like a lemon meringue pie in a Three Stooges short. If Andrew Luck hadn’t retired or if Patrick Mahomes had been taking snaps from Ryan Kelly, there would be a couple more shiny Lombardi Trophies on the team’s mantlepiece. Instead, we’ve been in a position where we’ve shuffled from one nonentity to another. And, yeah, the Patsies and the Seahags rebounded from oblivion to glory. But, they didn’t do it with Matt Ryan or Joe Flacco at the helm. They didn’t do it starting their third string QB. |
| The Following User Says Thank You to Kray007 For This Useful Post: | ||
Racehorse (03-10-2026) | ||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It’s funny how many other teams have found more success than Ballard’s teams. In your mind he has somehow, through no fault of his own, been unusually restricted at the QB position. While other teams are lucky, Ballard is skilled but ohh so unlucky. I’m very curious, since it wasn’t Ballards philosophy that led to Minschew, Flacco, Wentz, and Ryan, what is it that you think led to them being QBs for the Colts? I’ve said before if it’s all luck then why do you want such an unlucky GM controlling everything? The Rams got pretty damn lucky too. And let’s add SF and TB to the list of teams successfully replacing QBs very recently. Hell for fun I’ll go through how many teams have made the playoffs after changing QBs since Lucks retirement. We already have two SB winners. Bet there have been quite a few playoff teams. All of them I’m sure got lucky or experienced some degree of difficulty beyond what Ballard has though. Right? Shit edited to add Denver. So all 4 teams in the conference finals this year have replaced QBs in less time than Ballard has had. And I’m sure you have an excuse for each one. Last edited by rm1369; 03-09-2026 at 11:40 PM. |
| The Following User Says Thank You to rm1369 For This Useful Post: | ||
Oldcolt (03-10-2026) | ||
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
I agree that Ballard played it the right way. I had concerns; I was wrong. A glass half full attitude can be a powerful thing.
What's the threshold for these dudes keeping their jobs? Is a wild card berth sufficient? Does it need to be a division title and home playoff game? Does it need to be 1 playoff game victory? Does it need to be a deep run? Given the history of this organization the last decade, combined with Jones' full history in addition with his half season last year, what's the most likely outcome for the Indianapolis Colts? Ballard's strategy here appears to have been sound but I can't even start to think about another cycle of 3-4 years with that guy until something changes in a meaningful way. IMO he only has 1 year to accomplish that, with a QB that historically is questionable and has genuine durability issues. |
| The Following User Says Thank You to Mr. Session For This Useful Post: | ||
YDFL Commish (03-10-2026) | ||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Originally, I was dead set against tagging Jones and risk losing Pierce to free agency. I say this without insider knowledge. Maybe Jones was firm on a huge guaranteed multi year contract, maybe Pierce stated that he wanted to remain a Colts and if they offered a decent contract, he'd sign it. Since they have both players for next season, I have to say I was wrong about how Ballard handled it. I didn't think they'd keep Pierce once they tagged Jones. Jones IMO is still a question mark. He never had enough games against quality opponents to convince me he's the real deal. Add to that his injury, and he's a big risk. There's a couple of QBs that you could have gotten for a song, since their previous team is on the hook for millions. I really don't believe there would have been huge competition for Jones, but that's only my opinion. I don't like losing Pittman, but if they couldn't get him to swing a cap friendly deal, he had to go. I still have a soft spot for AR, he's probably a bust, but dam, if he could turn it around, the Colts would be in QB heaven.
__________________
Hey, it's your world. I'm just gonna play in it for a while.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|