General off-season news thread

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Seems the thinking is that if Grigson failed then doing the opposite must me the way to go. However, his plan was right. He just sucked as a talent evaluator and was an asshole. Ballard owes Grigson a huge thank you for the patience the fan base is willing to have after Grigson’s failures.

Yeah, if ultimately Grigson even hits on some of his picks we might have another Super Bowl. Hilton is the best pick he ever made. But he only went heavy FA bc he sucked at drafting.

Ballard has sold his plan well, wasn’t hard after the success Polian had. I like the guy. Seems like a good GM to play for. Kinda sucks he only had his most important piece for one year. Things have gotten infinitely more hard for him now. We have a patient fanbase, but not that patient.

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by rcubed

so tua officially declared for the draft.

if he is available would you draft him assuming the doctors think he will make a full recovery? is he too much of a future-injury risk?

It would have been stupid to go back. I would draft him. Every QB in this draft has some sort of question marks. He is very accurate, mobile, and doesn’t panic under pressure.

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

With his health questions, he might be available at 13. If the Colts doctors think he'll recover, he fits Reich's offense well. I think he has some accuracy questions beyond the injury, and that may be a reason not to draft him, but he does make NFL throws frequently.

Why do you say that? I think he is very accurate and throws a beautiful deep ball.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Chaka, haven’t you been one of the guys arguing with me from the beginning when I said that Ballard’s plan was a 3-4 yr process?

Kind of, I guess? While it will undoubtedly take time to get the kind of system that Ballard envisions in place, if you look back at our discussions I think what I took issue with was the suggestion or implication that we were doomed to also-ran status during that 3-4 year period. I don’t think that was the case at all. Upon Luck’s return the year after Ballard arrived, and after Pagano’s exit (who now admits he was in over his head), we were immediately a contender, it was just a question of how far we could get.

Originally Posted by rm1369

A great example of our different views on risk. To me, there was very little (almost zero) risk in those two signings. They stopped no move this year and have almost no risk for future years. 1 and 2 year contracts generally have very little risk when you are sitting on piles on salary cap space.

I think we're talking about different types of risk. Did those signings risk popping our salary cap? Absolutely not. Was Ballard sticking his neck out by signing a couple of guys to contracts that many thought were excessive? Yes he was, regardless of the length. He was signing two players who had issues (Funchess – unproductivity, Houston – age, injury). In that sense, they were both undeniably risky signings.

Originally Posted by rm1369

Roster is better in most areas, I won’t disagree at all. Just not at the positions most necessary for high level success. Yes, I think being a middle of the road franchise with no QB is a bad place to be. I’ll have to look up the numbers again, but every analysis I’ve ever seen suggests the percentages are better at the top of the draft, although obviously you can strike gold later.

Well, earlier draft picks are better, I cannot deny that. But I’m just saying that in recent years, it seems like teams in the mid-to-late part of the first round are increasingly able to find a franchise-type QB. I don’t know if colleges are preparing their QBs better for the NFL, if the offenses/rule changes have created more opportunities, or if the NFL has simply been slow to accept the idea of a successful QB who does not fit the traditional pocket-passer mold. It used to feel like a franchise QB drafted outside the top 2 or 3 picks was a rarity. Now it seems much more common. Strictly a subjective off-the-cuff observation, I admittedly have no data to back it up.

Originally Posted by rm1369

My comment on QB, LT, and pass rusher were not meant specifically as a knock on Ballard, more as a comment on the state of the roster and whether or not we should be happy that they could have almost conceivably backed in to a playoff spot - if things had went their way more during the second half of the season AND you ignore when things went their way during the first half of the season.

But again, I want to point out that while Castonzo considering retirement can seem like a huge surprise (just like Luck’s) it is exactly why I was against such a long term vision with (as you noted) 2 of the 3 most important positions seemingly in place. Shit changes quickly in the NFL.

Maybe so, but you have to plan and make assumptions about your players on any team, even one that jumps headfirst into the free agent fray. For example, it would have been ridiculous to use a high round pick on a QB when Luck was playing full time given the type of system we were trying to install. Same with Castonzo - knowing that we have him allows us to focus our attention elsewhere, where more immediate needs are present. Maybe we would have that luxury when Ballard’s plan was fully in place, but burning high draft picks on positions where we are already set does not seem the best use of our resources under the circumstances, and only delays implementation of the overall plan.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Luck4Reich

The fan base will not be as patient as you think...

Ballard addressed the glaring problem the right way in the Oline where as Grigson kept throwing band-aids at it. The right QB in the next 1-2 years and I think we all fully understand his worth.

I’m not one to defend Grigson, but I’m not sure that’s a fair assessment. Ballard’s first offseason he did pretty much nothing to address the Oline. That’s coming after the known problems from the Grigson era. As I’ve said, Grigson’s main issue was he was a shitty talent evaluator. But he invested resources into the oline. In 5 drafts Grigson made 18 pics in rounds 1-4 (the range where most guys contribute). 5 of them were used on oline - (1) 1st - Kelly, (1) 2nd - Mewhort, (2) 3rd - Thornton and Clark, and (1) 4th - Holmes. In 3 drafts Ballard has made 17 pics in rounds 1-4. He’s invested 3 pics on the oline - (1) 1st - Nelson, (1) 2nd - Smith, and (1) 4th - Banner. I’m not sure what the “right way” is other than hitting on draft pics.

And before someone takes this as me somehow criticizing Ballard, I’m not. I’m simply trying to dispel this idea that Grigson’s method was somehow wrong. It wasn’t, he simply couldn’t do the most important aspect of the job - evaluate talent.

[JAFF]

Originally Posted by rm1369

I’m not one to defend Grigson, but I’m not sure that’s a fair assessment. Ballard’s first offseason he did pretty much nothing to address the Oline. That’s coming after the known problems from the Grigson era. As I’ve said, Grigson’s main issue was he was a shitty talent evaluator. But he invested resources into the oline. In 5 drafts Grigson made 18 pics in rounds 1-4 (the range where most guys contribute). 5 of them were used on oline - (1) 1st - Kelly, (1) 2nd - Mewhort, (2) 3rd - Thornton and Clark, and (1) 4th - Holmes. In 3 drafts Ballard has made 17 pics in rounds 1-4. He’s invested 3 pics on the oline - (1) 1st - Nelson, (1) 2nd - Smith, and (1) 4th - Banner. I’m not sure what the “right way” is other than hitting on draft pics.

And before someone takes this as me somehow criticizing Ballard, I’m not. I’m simply trying to dispel this idea that Grigson’s method was somehow wrong. It wasn’t, he simply couldn’t do the most important aspect of the job - evaluate talent.

I like that Ballard values certain skills and physiques for at certain positions. He doesnt use group think, he trusts his judgement. People thought he was nuts where he drafted Leonard and Nelson. He overcame that jackass from NE backing out of the HC position and hired Reich.

He’s got a plan an he doesnt make excuses.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Maybe so, but you have to plan and make assumptions about your players on any team, even one that jumps headfirst into the free agent fray. For example, it would have been ridiculous to use a high round pick on a QB when Luck was playing full time given the type of system we were trying to install. Same with Castonzo - knowing that we have him allows us to focus our attention elsewhere, where more immediate needs are present. Maybe we would have that luxury when Ballard’s plan was fully in place, but burning high draft picks on positions where we are already set does not seem the best use of our resources under the circumstances, and only delays implementation of the overall plan.

What you are saying is true in general. However I’m not knocking Ballard for not having a replacement for Luck. My criticism has always been of essentially willingly wasting a year(s) with a franchise QB. It is very likely that from 2015 to 2022 that 2018 team will have been the closest to a title team the Colts have. So the best opportunity in a 7-8 year span was pissed away for a future that MAY come 4 years later. That is assuming he drafts a competent QB this year. In a league where the average career is 3.3 years that seems extremely wasteful to me. I get that he didn’t expect Luck to retire, but that to me is irrelevant. Luck admitted he considered retirement due to the shoulder and any player is one play away from retirement anyway. You’d think Colts fans of all people would understand how fragile it all is.

On AC it’s a little different. Again, I’m not criticizing Ballard for not having a great LT ready to step in. However, I won’t pretend like this has never been discussed or brought up. Going into the 2018 draft many said OT was the biggest OL need. Someone to play RT and then eventually slide in to the LT spot. I quoted one of my posts from the debates about Nelson where I said pretty much exactly that. So I’m not going to knock Ballard for it, but I’m also not going to pretend it was something he had no way or no reason to consider. If people on here are saying it then Ballard definitely sees it as well. He chose to draft admittedly a hell of an OG at 6 instead. But it was a decision he knowingly made.

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by JAFF

I like that Ballard values certain skills and physiques for at certain positions. He doesnt use group think, he trusts his judgement. People thought he was nuts where he drafted Leonard and Nelson. He overcame that jackass from NE backing out of the HC position and hired Reich.

He’s got a plan an he doesnt make excuses.

I don't know what group think you are referring to. He trusts his staff and leans on their evaluations.

This is kinda a false narrative that keeps popping up to make the picks seems all the more groundbreaking.

Nelson was the highest graded olineman coming out in years and was thought he would be an instant all-pro and one of the best guards in the league. People argued that the guard is not as important as other positions. You can still make that argument. But with the rise of dominant interior rushers, it has placed more importance on the interior of the oline to protect your QB. Also, if you are going to spend a top ten pick on a guard Nelson is the guy, he was the safest pick in years. Also, the Redskins took Sherff 5th overall and it turned out very well for them. There was precedent for the decision. Nelson fit a need and was really an easy pick. The decision was whether the pick should be used on another position.

As for Leonard, he was routinely the 4th or 5th rated linebacker on many draft rankings. He just suffered from playing at a small school. But his metrics measured just as well as the other top LB's. Also, Leonard's style is a very good scheme fot for this system. If kept clean he is allowed to run around and influence plays and use his long arms and speed. I think his performance surprised some people, but it wasn't like he was some guy suppossed to be drafted in the 7th round. He was recruited by Clemson, one of the most athletic and talented college teams in the country.

[rcubed]

Originally Posted by rm1369

What you are saying is true in general. However I’m not knocking Ballard for not having a replacement for Luck. My criticism has always been of essentially willingly wasting a year(s) with a franchise QB.

On the flip side, in the last few years the rams have gone all in to win now. Resigning their own guys to big contracts (goff, gurly, donald) and being very aggressive in signing FAs and trades (fowler, weddle, mathews, suh, ramsey, etc).

They got embarrassed in the SB and didnt make the playoffs this year. They dont have a ton of cap space and need to resign guys, specifically fowler and ramsey who will bring a big contracts.

Not necessarily the best way to go about it either.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by rm1369

What you are saying is true in general. However I’m not knocking Ballard for not having a replacement for Luck. My criticism has always been of essentially willingly wasting a year(s) with a franchise QB. It is very likely that from 2015 to 2022 that 2018 team will have been the closest to a title team the Colts have. So the best opportunity in a 7-8 year span was pissed away for a future that MAY come 4 years later. That is assuming he drafts a competent QB this year. In a league where the average career is 3.3 years that seems extremely wasteful to me. I get that he didn’t expect Luck to retire, but that to me is irrelevant. Luck admitted he considered retirement due to the shoulder and any player is one play away from retirement anyway. You’d think Colts fans of all people would understand how fragile it all is.

On AC it’s a little different. Again, I’m not criticizing Ballard for not having a great LT ready to step in. However, I won’t pretend like this has never been discussed or brought up. Going into the 2018 draft many said OT was the biggest OL need. Someone to play RT and then eventually slide in to the LT spot. I quoted one of my posts from the debates about Nelson where I said pretty much exactly that. So I’m not going to knock Ballard for it, but I’m also not going to pretend it was something he had no way or no reason to consider. If people on here are saying it then Ballard definitely sees it as well. He chose to draft admittedly a hell of an OG at 6 instead. But it was a decision he knowingly made.

On the bold part, I think you are using a stat that isn't relevant. Starters average closer to ten years in the league, whereas the bottom of the roster is what lowers that average. Make any argument you want about urgency, but make sure the data you offer is pertinent.