Colts Re-Sign Blackmon

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by rm1369

The Patriots were the exact opposite of the colts. No they didn’t buy big name free agents often, but they took chances on veteran players constantly and reinvented their team constantly. Just the top of my head they traded for:

Randy Moss
Corey Dillon
Danny Amendola
Wes Welker

And I believe signed Darrell Revis as a free agent. Plenty more guys they acquired other than in the draft. They loved experienced vets. They changed much more than the Colts did and you didn’t see them with the same weaknesses year after year either.

Yes having a hall of fame level QB makes sustained success easier. I don’t disagree.

No a rookie contract isnt a requirement, but it’s a significant advantage. Especially for a team that wants to straight line contracts.

They cheated as well, so they're not a franchise I'd model after, unless you're willing to engage in constant, rampant cheating. I think I'd model after KC, which just so happens to be the team from which Ballard came to the Colts. What does KC do? Draft well, retain their best players, and take calculated risks to make their team better. What does Ballard do? Draft well, retain his best players, and take calculated risks to make his team better.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

They cheated as well, so they're not a franchise I'd model after, unless you're willing to engage in constant, rampant cheating. I think I'd model after KC, which just so happens to be the team from which Ballard came to the Colts. What does KC do? Draft well, retain their best players, and take calculated risks to make their team better. What does Ballard do? Draft well, retain his best players, and take calculated risks to make his team better.

Ballard may have been a part of that organization but it’s stretching it to suggest there is any connection in methods. Hell the GM that Ballard worked for was fired 7 years ago. Ballard’s history and his comments say he wouldn’t have traded up for Mahomes. He wouldn’t have traded Hill. He wouldn’t have traded Sneed. He wouldn’t have aggressively revamped their offensive line using free agency and trades along with the draft to get there. Drafting good is the only common point between them. KC has been significantly more aggressive in their moves than the Colts have been. But yes, Ballard worked there 8 yrs ago.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Ballard may have been a part of that organization but it’s stretching it to suggest there is any connection in methods. Hell the GM that Ballard worked for was fired 7 years ago. Ballard’s history and his comments say he wouldn’t have traded up for Mahomes. He wouldn’t have traded Hill. He wouldn’t have traded Sneed. He wouldn’t have aggressively revamped their offensive line using free agency and trades along with the draft to get there. Drafting good is the only common point between them. KC has been significantly more aggressive in their moves than the Colts have been. But yes, Ballard worked there 8 yrs ago.

Ballard's history of making aggressive moves to fill the QB position indicates to you that he wouldn't have traded up for Mahomes? That's an interesting interpretation of events, especially considering it was his subordinate in the KC front office who ended up doing it. Ballard has been working from a different position than KC has for the last half decade, which is why the same process has led to different types of moves. Had Ballard had the franchise QB he was hired in with all along, he likely would be making similar moves to what the Chiefs have done over the last several years. Since he's had to scramble to fill the QB position, his moves have looked different, but the pattern is the same.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

Ballard's history of making aggressive moves to fill the QB position indicates to you that he wouldn't have traded up for Mahomes? That's an interesting interpretation of events, especially considering it was his subordinate in the KC front office who ended up doing it. Ballard has been working from a different position than KC has for the last half decade, which is why the same process has led to different types of moves. Had Ballard had the franchise QB he was hired in with all along, he likely would be making similar moves to what the Chiefs have done over the last several years. Since he's had to scramble to fill the QB position, his moves have looked different, but the pattern is the same.

It was Dorsey in KC who traded up for Mahomes. Also the man who hired Ballard in KC. He was Ballard’s superior not subordinate. He was fired that season. Maybe that’s what Ballard often referred to when cautioning against trading up for a QB, telling the media how he’d be gone if the guy didn’t work out. Apparently we have different views on what aggressive is because Ballard’s QB search to me was very cautious. In no move did he trade the resources KC gave up to get Mahomes. Coincidentally he passed on Stafford who was traded for a similar package as to what KC traded for Mahomes. A more known quality at the time than Mahomes was coming out of the draft and also known as a safer option than Wentz when they were traded. But sure, let’s overlook that Ballard never traded up for a QB, has never traded multiple firsts for anyone, his passing on Stafford because of price, his pushing back on the media’s questions on the need to trade up and say he would have done it because he once worked for the man who did it. Don’t look at Dorsey’s history in Cleveland though, because it looks nothing like Ballard’s either. Perhaps Ballard has saw his mentor be canned in two jobs while be aggressive? Maybe that’s what he was referring to when telling the media why he DIDN’T trade up for a QB?

Skip all of that though and at least we can agree that Ballard has not yet made moves similar to KC since Mahomes was drafted and his mentor fired. Now again because he worked there you think it’s obvious he will do it once he has his franchise QB. This is getting to why I ask the question. Ballard fans constantly move the goal posts, so I try to pin them down. We agree that he hasn’t done it yet, we disagree that he will start doing it. At least now I have an expected timeline in place for your expectations- when he knows he has his franchise QB. We’ll see.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by rm1369

The Patriots were the exact opposite of the colts. No they didn’t buy big name free agents often, but they took chances on veteran players constantly and reinvented their team constantly. Just the top of my head they traded for:

Randy Moss
Corey Dillon
Danny Amendola
Wes Welker

And I believe signed Darrell Revis as a free agent. Plenty more guys they acquired other than in the draft. They loved experienced vets. They changed much more than the Colts did and you didn’t see them with the same weaknesses year after year either.

Yes having a hall of fame level QB makes sustained success easier. I don’t disagree.

No a rookie contract isnt a requirement, but it’s a significant advantage. Especially for a team that wants to straight line contracts.

You named five players over the course of 20 years for them, but we have had Ballard for just 7. Further, Ballard has added as many vets via trade or free agency as they did. So, you have to ask yourself what the difference is. It is having the franchise QB in place.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Maybe not. But scroll through the list of highest paid defensive players in the league and tell me what the majority of players are known for. Pass rushers are highly valued for a reason. Seeing how it matters so little, I’m curious why you think Ballard has invested so many resources into finding one?

It’s crazy to me that instead of conceding the obvious (that Ballard didn’t go into win now mode with Wentz) you’d rather try to minimize the importance of pass rushers in the modern NFL.

I did not say that at all. Pass rush is important. Ballard has been pursuing one for a while. It seems they are valued because they do not grow on trees. If they are available in free agency, they are either washed up, tagged, or over-priced. I think he has addressed it fair enough, given our past season and its success. I am not sure what year it was, but it could be the year we drafted two pass rushers to address the problem. He addressed it, just not the way you wanted him to address it.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by rm1369

It was Dorsey in KC who traded up for Mahomes. Also the man who hired Ballard in KC. He was Ballard’s superior not subordinate. He was fired that season. Maybe that’s what Ballard often referred to when cautioning against trading up for a QB, telling the media how he’d be gone if the guy didn’t work out. Apparently we have different views on what aggressive is because Ballard’s QB search to me was very cautious. In no move did he trade the resources KC gave up to get Mahomes. Coincidentally he passed on Stafford who was traded for a similar package as to what KC traded for Mahomes. A more known quality at the time than Mahomes was coming out of the draft and also known as a safer option than Wentz when they were traded. But sure, let’s overlook that Ballard never traded up for a QB, has never traded multiple firsts for anyone, his passing on Stafford because of price, his pushing back on the media’s questions on the need to trade up and say he would have done it because he once worked for the man who did it. Don’t look at Dorsey’s history in Cleveland though, because it looks nothing like Ballard’s either. Perhaps Ballard has saw his mentor be canned in two jobs while be aggressive? Maybe that’s what he was referring to when telling the media why he DIDN’T trade up for a QB?

Skip all of that though and at least we can agree that Ballard has not yet made moves similar to KC since Mahomes was drafted and his mentor fired. Now again because he worked there you think it’s obvious he will do it once he has his franchise QB. This is getting to why I ask the question. Ballard fans constantly move the goal posts, so I try to pin them down. We agree that he hasn’t done it yet, we disagree that he will start doing it. At least now I have an expected timeline in place for your expectations- when he knows he has his franchise QB. We’ll see.

According to everything I found online, it was Brett Veach who traded up for Mahomes, not John Dorsey. Ballard was director of football operations in KC in 2015-2016 while Veach was co-director of player personnel.

GMs that are cautious don't trade first round picks for players, Ballard has done that twice in 7 drafts. It definitely worked with Buckner, and didn't work as hoped with Wentz, but you could see the logic. And there are definitely things Ballard has done in my opinion wrong or I wish he had done differently, like letting Wentz reach the snap threshold to lose the 1 or not drafting Montez Sweat at 26 when he fell to him, but the second one netted the Colts Pittman. Bottom line is he's pulled 3+ starters and many more contributors out of every draft class, that's production even Polian didn't have. If he stops doing that, the team will get worse and it will make sense to replace him. You don't replace that level of production at GM, however, unless you know the replacement will be as good or better at finding talent. I certainly wouldn't replace Ballard to end up with another Ryan Grigson.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

I did not say that at all. Pass rush is important. Ballard has been pursuing one for a while. It seems they are valued because they do not grow on trees. If they are available in free agency, they are either washed up, tagged, or over-priced. I think he has addressed it fair enough, given our past season and its success. I am not sure what year it was, but it could be the year we drafted two pass rushers to address the problem. He addressed it, just not the way you wanted him to address it.

You’ve turned my comment about the inexperience at DE during the wentz season into a critique of Ballard’s overall performance at DE. That’s not why I’ve made the comment several times. Dam keeps trying to say that trading for Wentz was Ballard going win now. I’m saying it wasn’t because he treated the rest of the roster the same. No sane GM would go into a win now season with the inexperience that team had at such a key position. Ironically it’s the one time I think Ballard’s approach is defensible.

As far as solving DE it’s obviously an area Ballard has struggled. He’s invested a lot of resources in it with mostly mediocre results. However it’s not something I specifically criticize him for. Hard position to fill and he’s attempted to - including using free agency. My only real criticism is being so cheap he lost Autry again essentially gifting the position to a rookie. Other than that, he’s just not had a major hit at the position. It happens.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

According to everything I found online, it was Brett Veach who traded up for Mahomes, not John Dorsey. Ballard was director of football operations in KC in 2015-2016 while Veach was co-director of player personnel.

GMs that are cautious don't trade first round picks for players, Ballard has done that twice in 7 drafts. It definitely worked with Buckner, and didn't work as hoped with Wentz, but you could see the logic. And there are definitely things Ballard has done in my opinion wrong or I wish he had done differently, like letting Wentz reach the snap threshold to lose the 1 or not drafting Montez Sweat at 26 when he fell to him, but the second one netted the Colts Pittman. Bottom line is he's pulled 3+ starters and many more contributors out of every draft class, that's production even Polian didn't have. If he stops doing that, the team will get worse and it will make sense to replace him. You don't replace that level of production at GM, however, unless you know the replacement will be as good or better at finding talent. I certainly wouldn't replace Ballard to end up with another Ryan Grigson.

I have no idea what you are searching for, but just google video of Dorsey selecting Mahomes. I’m on mobile and not going to add links. You can even check Dorsey’s wiki page as well. Dorsey was fired in June, after the draft. That’s probably where you are getting it wrong - the timing was unusual. Yes Veach was hired in 2017 but not until after the draft. Weird timing for a change for sure. Which is why I bring up Ballard’s comments about trading up for a QB and making the wrong decision would lead to him not being there the next year. A comment he’s made to the media more than once. Dorsey was pretty heavily criticized for the move. It isn’t officially the reason he was let go, but the timing of it was strange.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by rm1369

You’ve turned my comment about the inexperience at DE during the wentz season into a critique of Ballard’s overall performance at DE. That’s not why I’ve made the comment several times. Dam keeps trying to say that trading for Wentz was Ballard going win now. I’m saying it wasn’t because he treated the rest of the roster the same. No sane GM would go into a win now season with the inexperience that team had at such a key position. Ironically it’s the one time I think Ballard’s approach is defensible.

As far as solving DE it’s obviously an area Ballard has struggled. He’s invested a lot of resources in it with mostly mediocre results. However it’s not something I specifically criticize him for. Hard position to fill and he’s attempted to - including using free agency. My only real criticism is being so cheap he lost Autry again essentially gifting the position to a rookie. Other than that, he’s just not had a major hit at the position. It happens.

If I am remembering it right, Autry signed with Tennessee for the same money we offered.

And one thing you seem to forget is that every resource tat you use for one player has a domino effect on the resources you have for other players. It is highly likely that the resources needed to go get a stud pass rusher (if there was even one available at the time) may have cost us a different player. So, tell me who was available that off-season that you think Ballard should have gotten. It is easy to sit back and point a finger, but when you (collective you) do it, you never give names or scenarios that would have been possible.