I come to praise Chris Ballard, not to bury him.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory

Not to speak for him, but I've read him say it, and I agree... It's not so much fear of something worse.

It's fear of booting a guy who puts out a good roster and THEN landing a QB. He's right. If we had one of those QB's listed, the Colts would run away with this division yearly.

I mean that would suck as well, but my biggest fear is another Grigson, whether or not he gets a franchise QB. Ballard can build a roster. If you replace him, will the new guy be able to build a roster?

Originally Posted by Oldcolt

Why on earth does everyone think we have such a great team? The only quasi all pro on this team is a guard. We have zero difference makers on defense, unless you count Buckner, who wasn't even drafted by us.

What does it matter how talent was acquired? If the Colts signed a QB no one here had ever heard of off the street tomorrow and he won 2025 NFL MVP, would you care that the Colts didn't draft him? Also, you realize there are less than 50 All-Pro players every year in a league of 2,240 players, right? If you just do a per team average, it works out to 1.56 All-Pros per team, and that's first and second team, by the way. Oh, and the Colts had 2 All-Pros last year, and while Franlin probably shouldn't have made it, Buckner should have over Zach Allen.

Regardless, how can we say the roster is good? Because with bad QB play, it's still a ~.500 team. All that's needed is good QB play.

Originally Posted by omahacolt

starting Gardner minshew wouldn't have really inspired much confidence in the fan base

Why not? 2023 was supposed to be a down year, and starting Minshew would've meant sitting AR for the year, which would've been good for his development.

[Oldcolt]

Dam, it doesn't matter how you get players but that isn't what I was pointing out. Buckner required almost zero evaluation. He was an established player who was flirting with all pro. That isn't who Ballard gets paid to evaluate. My point was he has evaluated and drafted very few perennial top 100 type impact defensive players over the past 9 years. All pros are hard to find and to draft. Somehow you think that gives Ballard a pass. I just don't get that. It is damn hard to find that GM that can do that but it doesn't mean we should be satisfied with ok. I sure hope new ownership isn't.

Oh and I don't give a shit who you think or don't think should have been all pro.

[IndyNorm]

I was out of town this weekend (saw Oasis in Chicago then in Indy for a couple of days visiting family), but I did follow the topic on my phone and have been somewhat chomping at the bit to put in my .02.

I don't think anyone on here is upset w/ Ballard selecting AR. He took a big swing for the fences, and if he ends up striking out then so be it. Where we (or at least I) have issues is with the clear lack of vision in the development plan for AR. They draft one of if not the rawest QB prospects in history, hand him the starters keys from the get go, and just 2 years and 15 starts into his career they've pretty much given up on him. So maybe the issue is more Steichen than Ballard, or maybe there's something to Jim pressuring them to start AR. But Ballard was pretty quick to say that Irsay didn't do this in his presser last week. Of course he could be just saying that to avoid any additional controversy, etc.

I'm guessing that if DJ struggles (which despite what a lot of you believe is a distinct possibility) combined w/ AR not improving both Ballard and Steichen will be gone, since one of the two will in all likelihood have to play well for us to make the playoffs.

I have plenty more thoughts on everything discussed, but it's late so will post more tomorrow.

[YDFL Commish]

Originally Posted by IndyNorm

I was out of town this weekend (saw Oasis in Chicago then in Indy for a couple of days visiting family), but I did follow the topic on my phone and have been somewhat chomping at the bit to put in my .02.

I don't think anyone on here is upset w/ Ballard selecting AR. He took a big swing for the fences, and if he ends up striking out then so be it. Where we (or at least I) have issues is with the clear lack of vision in the development plan for AR. They draft one of if not the rawest QB prospects in history, hand him the starters keys from the get go, and just 2 years and 15 starts into his career they've pretty much given up on him. So maybe the issue is more Steichen than Ballard, or maybe there's something to Jim pressuring them to start AR. But Ballard was pretty quick to say that Irsay didn't do this in his presser last week. Of course he could be just saying that to avoid any additional controversy, etc.

I'm guessing that if DJ struggles (which despite what a lot of you believe is a distinct possibility) combined w/ AR not improving both Ballard and Steichen will be gone, since one of the two will in all likelihood have to play well for us to make the playoffs.

I have plenty more thoughts on everything discussed, but it's late so will post more tomorrow.

Irsay, handed AR the starters keys. I hope that nobody on this forum believes that AR beat out Minshew after a week of TC, and then 2 years later, couldn't beat out Daniel Jones? He didn't beat out Minshew and probably wouldn't beat out Minshew today.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish

I honestly don't know how a team with the 55th ranked QB and 28th ranked defense wins 8 games? Statistical anomaly, a credit to offensive coaching, or a better than average roster?

I sincerely doubt that this has ever happened in the NFL before.

Jonathan Taylor is good, but not THAT good. Maybe the 55th ranked QB was not actually the 55th best QB, but still not solid enough to manage a team well.

[IndyNorm]

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish

Irsay, handed AR the starters keys. I hope that nobody on this forum believes that AR beat out Minshew after a week of TC, and then 2 years later, couldn't beat out Daniel Jones? He didn't beat out Minshew and probably wouldn't beat out Minshew today.

Not sure how you got that I was saying or suggesting that AR beat out Minshew in '23. He was clearly handed the starter job from pretty much day one. As far as Irsay pressuring the FO and coaches to start AR here's what Ballard said about it:

Ballard said earlier this offseason that he regretted playing Richardson right away as a rookie, a revelation that prompted a question to Ballard on Wednesday about whether the front office and coaching staff were pressured by late owner Jim Irsay to play the rookie immediately.

Ballard bristled at the question.

“No, not at all,” Ballard said. “We made the decision. You learn sometimes with decisions that didn't go the way you wish they would have gone and so – but no, there was no pressure.”

The article then goes to state that Irsay did say he thought AR would get better by playing right away, but that was aligned w/ what Steichen had said from the point right after we drafted AR. So based off of all of their comments it seems like Irsay, Ballard, and Steichen were all aligned in starting AR from day 1.

I honestly don't know how a team with the 55th ranked QB and 28th ranked defense wins 8 games? Statistical anomaly, a credit to offensive coaching, or a better than average roster?

I sincerely doubt that this has ever happened in the NFL before.

Jonathan Taylor is good, but not THAT good. Maybe the 55th ranked QB was not actually the 55th best QB, but still not solid enough to manage a team well.

You guys are really underestimating how soft our schedules have been, especially last year. We played 6 games against the bottom 4 teams in the league, another 2 against bottom 10 teams, and 1 against a Tua-less Phins which is a bottom 5 team. 7/8 wins in '24 came in those games.


Some other thoughts I have based on the discussion:

On Ballard - yes, he's a good GM, but IMO he's not a great GM. He's a pretty good talent evaluator and for the most part has drafted well, but his phobia of top tier FAs has handicapped his effectiveness and has been a big factor in our mediocrity over the past 5 seasons. I agree w/ rn that his decision to bring in win now QBs and slow play other parts of the roster is not a winning strategy. It was really good to see him finally step out of his comfort zone this offseason, so if we have a good season and he keeps his job then hopefully he doesn't go back into his shell.

Also, I don't think the fear of bringing in someone worse should be the reason we keep Ballard. If we think we can go get someone better then we should go get them.

On Grigson - Yeah he was god awful, and his incompetence has definitely made Ballard look better than he actually is. Something I've always found interesting about Grigson's tenure is that he made a lot of really good moves when we were backed up against the cap in '12, but once the cap handcuffs were taken off things went to shit. We lost Tom Telesco after the '12 season, so I think a lot of the success from the Grig's first offseason probably came from Telesco.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

Again, you have to consider the markets. Green Bay and Indianapolis are small markets. It takes them a generational quarterback to get them into elite territory. We had manning, GB had Favre, and then Rodgers. KC has Mahomes. Small markets do not attract free agents like the big ones do, and their owners do not have cash to overpay signing bonuses. Then we had Luck to mask deficiencies and get us to 11-5 nearly every year. Do I wish Ballard had dome some things differently? You bet I do, but I understand why a lot of things we wanted did not happen. The only real miss I see at QB was not getting Baker. I remember most here were against it, too. It seemed like an illogical choice, and it took him three teams to find success. Maybe Jones can do that for us.

I will give you props for coming and admitting your position.

Sorry man, I’m not buying the small market thing. First, being aggressive doesn’t just mean in free agency. You mentioned Mahomes and KC. That’s a great example. How did KC get Mahomes? They had a QB that had gotten them to the playoffs 3 of 4 years and was a pro bowl alternate several times, but it wasn’t good enough to get them over the hump. So they traded UP in the first round to get Mahomes. From 27 to 10. And then they traded Alex Smith after another playoff and Pro Bowl alternate selection to give the keys to Mahomes. All of that seems like a no brainer NOW because it’s Mahomes, but that wasn’t the case at the time. Mahomes was another unproven QB with question marks. Now be honest - do you see Ballard making those moves? I sure as hell don’t.

Second, Irsay seemed to pride himself in handing out big contracts. The signing bonus is still real money regardless if it’s resigning your own guy or paying an outside free agent. And Grigson didn’t have much issue signing free agents. He spent money. Some well, a lot poorly. Regardless it’s proof to me the small market isn’t as big an issue as many pretend.

Third, even when talking about being free agency most of us criticizing Ballard’s approach aren’t necessarily calling for the top free agents. We are asking for competent avg level players at obvious needs. Look at the secondary over a couple years. The team had an obvious glaring need that Ballard threw a collection of 1st and 2nd yr UDFA and 6th and 7th rounders at. Because he was content living with a shitty secondary until he could fix it in the draft. “We like our guys.” Of course the game that’s always played is to give a list of free agents, say why any that were known good wouldn’t sign here, disregard any that unexpectedly played well as nobody could have known, and then presenting the remaining list and saying “so what great player should he have signed”. Great isn’t the point. Often average or even a little below average would have improved the team. A mediocre vet in the secondary is often going to make less mistakes than a mediocre (at best) 1st or 2nd yr player. And we saw it often. But Ballard needs to keep spots open for his draft picks and he doesn’t believe in the value of vets.

Go back to that Mahomes question - think Ballard would have pulled the trigger? Hell no he wouldn’t. Now go look at what KC did after their SB loss to the Bucs where their OL let them down. Do you see Ballard aggressively fixing the line the way KC did? Again, Hell no. They used the draft, free agency and trades to fix an issue. You know exactly what Ballard would have done - “we like our guys”. I just laugh when I hear people say Ballard shares the KC front office philosophy. I’m sure there are some similarities and things he learned there, but aggression wasn’t one of them. His teams have consistently had glaring holes that have cost them in season. He’s always been content to deal with it later.

[Oldcolt]

I think Green Bay just threw your small market argument a curve with being able to acquire and pay Parsons almost 50 million a year

[Discflinger]

Originally Posted by IndyNorm

I was out of town this weekend (saw Oasis in Chicago...

Blocked

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by Oldcolt

I think Green Bay just threw your small market argument a curve with being able to acquire and pay Parsons almost 50 million a year

I considered that argument would come up. I am not sure how GB does some things they do, as they are a publicly owned team. It is a unique arrangement, so I am not sure how they do signing bonuses. Care to educate me on their structure? Google does not explain it well.