Colts sign Matt Slauson

[Butter]

Originally Posted by FatDT

That's just perception. The people with concerns think they're being rational and that those arguing against them are "Ballard ball washers" or "Pollyannas". And the people supporting Ballard's moves think they're being rational and that those with questions are "freaking out" and "bitching".

I don't think everyone questioning Ballards moves are freaking out.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by Chaka

But is Suh a fit culture-wise? That would be my guess as to Ballard's thinking in this regard. You can agree or disagree with the approach, but Ballard has made it clear building team's culture is central to his strategy.

Suh is interviewing teams to see if he agrees with their culture at this point. Even if he's not a culture fit (which I think he is because people tend to mature as they age), sometimes a player's talent is too great to ignore. The only better 3 tech in the NFL is Aaron Donald, and the Rams aren't letting him get away. The 3 tech is extremely important to what Eberflus wants to do defensively. So why no visit?

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by rcubed

there is a difference in implementing a 3 year plan and "tanking" or "doing nothing" which some are claiming (bitching about)

As I’ve said I wouldn’t specifically call Ballard’s plan tanking but it’s damn close enough that I won’t get pissed at someone seeing it that way.

And I see very few willing to admit that it is a 3-4 year plan. Hell Chaka lays out what is obviously a long term plan but refuses to admit that it basically writes off 3-4 years. I can understand why people buy into Ballard’s plan even though I don’t agree with it. What I can’t understand is those that try to have it both ways - claiming we aren’t writing off several years, but also refusing to acknowledge that Ballard has done little to nothing to get better while having significant resources to do so. And if your argument is he is getting better by adding a significant volume of draft picks then ok - but how is that not a long term plan?

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

Suh is interviewing teams to see if he agrees with their culture at this point. Even if he's not a culture fit (which I think he is because people tend to mature as they age), sometimes a player's talent is too great to ignore. The only better 3 tech in the NFL is Aaron Donald, and the Rams aren't letting him get away. The 3 tech is extremely important to what Eberflus wants to do defensively. So why no visit?

If Suh is interviewing teams about a culture fit how in the world do you think the Colts would be even in his top 5? They were 4-12 last year. They’ve lost more talent so far this offseason than they’ve acquired. Their GM and coaching staff apparently have no flexibility or creativity (see Hankins release). And there GM isn’t planningbto be competitive for a couple more years. Why would Suh look here? The only reason Suh would consider the Colts is money. Money that Ballard has shown himself unwilling to spend.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by rm1369

If Suh is interviewing teams about a culture fit how in the world do you think the Colts would be even in his top 5? They were 4-12 last year. They’ve lost more talent so far this offseason than they’ve acquired. Their GM and coaching staff apparently have no flexibility or creativity (see Haskins release). And there GM isn’t planningbto be competitive for a couple more years. Why would Suh look here? The only reason Suh would consider the Colts is money. Money that Ballard has shown himself unwilling to spend.

Because money talks, the Colts have the most of it, and he'd have a chance to help shape the culture in Indianapolis.

[sherck]

Originally Posted by rm1369

If Suh is interviewing teams about a culture fit how in the world do you think the Colts would be even in his top 5? They were 4-12 last year. They’ve lost more talent so far this offseason than they’ve acquired. Their GM and coaching staff apparently have no flexibility or creativity (see Haskins release). And there GM isn’t planningbto be competitive for a couple more years. Why would Suh look here? The only reason Suh would consider the Colts is money. Money that Ballard has shown himself unwilling to spend.

To the best of my knowledge, no reason has been given as to why Hankins was released.

Can we speculate? Sure.

Fit scheme mismatch? Perhaps.

Money becoming guarented the next day? Perhaps but Colts have a ton of cap space.

However, do we know that Hankins did not asked to be released because of the scheme? Nope.

We have the end result and about 5% of the knowledge that formed that result.

Speculate all you want about how our unflexible coaches and GM are, but understand that it is all just speculation. Not fact.

Walk Worthy,

[FatDT]

Originally Posted by sherck

To the best of my knowledge, no reason has been given as to why Hankins was released.

Can we speculate? Sure.

Fit scheme mismatch? Perhaps.

Money becoming guarented the next day? Perhaps but Colts have a ton of cap space.

However, do we know that Hankins did not asked to be released because of the scheme? Nope.

We have the end result and about 5% of the knowledge that formed that result.

Speculate all you want about how our unflexible coaches and GM are, but understand that it is all just speculation. Not fact.

Walk Worthy,

Ballard apparently said on Grady and Big Joe today that it was a scheme fit problem.

[rm1369]

Pretty sure Irsay referenced the scheme change in a tweet about his release. And I don’t see him asking to be released after he lingered on the market last year and his previous defensive experience. But I suppose you are correct - I don’t know 100%. What I do know is that Ballard cut his signature free agent signing from last year a day before he had a large guarantee kick in. Regardless I’ll stand by my point - I don’t see the colts being attractive to Suh “culturally” unless they significantly overpay. Something Ballard has been unwilling to do.

[sherck]

Originally Posted by FatDT

Ballard apparently said on Grady and Big Joe today that it was a scheme fit problem.

Okay, well, then we apparently do have some inflexible coaches because while Hankins is not Dwight Freeney, both are talents that fit into whatever defensive scheme you end up running.

Denico Autry =/= Jonathan Hankins

Our interior is still "okay" but Hankins made it better:

NT = Woods, Stewart
UT = Anderson, Autry
Flex = Ridgeway

If the value is there I could see a draft pick at DT to challenge Stewart or Ridgeway for their position but I would also be good this season with addressing other spots on the defense (DE, LB, CB primarily).

Walk Worthy,

[FatDT]

Originally Posted by sherck

Okay, well, then we apparently do have some inflexible coaches because while Hankins is not Dwight Freeney, both are talents that fit into whatever defensive scheme you end up running.

Denico Autry =/= Jonathan Hankins

Our interior is still "okay" but Hankins made it better:

NT = Woods, Stewart
UT = Anderson, Autry
Flex = Ridgeway

If the value is there I could see a draft pick at DT to challenge Stewart or Ridgeway for their position but I would also be good this season with addressing other spots on the defense (DE, LB, CB primarily).

Walk Worthy,

There must be more to it. In what world is Hankins less athletic or talented than Woods or Stewart? Either it was money (which makes little sense) or Hankins might've wanted out (he'll probably get a bump in pay and can sign w/a better team). Occam's Razor says it's probably option B, and that the cover story about scheme fit makes the Colts look better than "Our talented DT doesn't want to play here".

No way to know. But that is more believable to me than the idea that accomplished football people could say Hankins is a bad fit but Woods and Stewart aren't.