Colts sign Matt Slauson

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I disagree. I don't think Ballard intends to tank any seasons. In my view, he's trying to do three things: (1) reshape the roster that better fits the planned offensive and defenses schemes the Colts intend to employ, (2) utilize contract structures that incentivize the players to maximize their on-field performance, and (3) manage the Colts' cap situation to maximize the team's flexibility.

Implementing this strategy (particularly the first part) may necessarily cause some temporary weaknesses at certain positions - such as releasing Hankins - but I think he believes the Colts will be stronger and leaner (from a cap perspective) when this is complete. It also may cause the Colts to lose out on some of the big name free agents, since they aren't necessarily interested in the type of contract the Colts will want to use and will have better options elsewhere, but I'm guessing that in most instances Ballard believes the second or third best option is a better value for his strategy anyways. Presumably, he's keeping the Colt's ammo dry for when a truly great free agent option presents itself, and in those circumstances maybe he'd be willing to stray from the his normal approach. But paying Moncrief $9-11M or Melvin $10M+ a year (I know he only got $6.5M, but reports are that he wanted this from the Colts) probably isn't smart and certainly not consistent with this approach.

It takes some guts to do this, because he's being roundly criticized in the media and by fans, but I think he's shown he's a strong leader and believes in what he's trying to accomplish. And I really think its premature to criticize this offseason until it's over.

I agree with most of this, but if he's waiting for an elite free agent to present themselves, there's one on the market that he's not going after right now who's a perfect schematic fit for what Eberflus wants to do.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by testcase448

We better be looking for another franchise QB because this one isn't going to survive the half a decade this is going to take. IF it it pans out

I've actually advocated for building through the draft, but they should sell off Luck to expedite the process, this is just backwards. Ballard is writing off the next three years at least, why keep Luck?

The Hankins move and Melvin moves were stupid, you ADD players to existing core.

I don’t think this is true at all. To begin with, neither free agency nor the draft is complete, so you don’t really know what the team will look like on opening week of the season. You are panicking. There are all sorts of opportunities out there – restricted free agents, trades, draft etc. Yes, most of the big names are gone, but I don’t think these guys necessarily fit Ballard’s long term strategy anyway.

Second, Ballard isn’t writing off three years – he can’t in this era of free agency. In three years, many of his draft picks will be gearing up for their own free agency, and I think its critical to his strategy that a large proportion of the team continue to be on their rookie contracts.

Third, what do Hankins/Melvin have to do with Luck anyways? By your line of thinking, a weakened defense will actually protect Luck because he won’t be able to be on the field as much. So you should celebrate their absence! Regardless, the Hankins/Melvin decisions were undoubtedly driven by Ballard’s cost/benefit analysis. By not spending on them now, he can use their salaries later on players who better fit the schemes – and before you start talking about how much cap space they already have, remember that the cap minimums are judged on a four year basis. Even if he doesn’t spend the savings this year, he can still bank it for a later year to spend on our own free agents or on an outside free agent. The game is to maximize your cap currency, not simply to spend like a drunken sailor on leave – and that’s what I personally believe paying Melvin $10M+ would be a fair comparison to. Nice player, no question, but if you pay enough Melvins you won’t be able to pay the truly special players too - there’s always going to be Melvin/Moncrief/Grant types available, but it can be devastating to overpay them. To just complain that we lost Melvin or Hankins is meaningless unless you can also make the case that their salaries are justified as well. The two go hand in hand.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

I agree with most of this, but if he's waiting for an elite free agent to present themselves, there's one on the market that he's not going after right now who's a perfect schematic fit for what Eberflus wants to do.

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.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I disagree. I don't think Ballard intends to tank any seasons. In my view, he's trying to do three things: (1) reshape the roster that better fits the planned offensive and defenses schemes the Colts intend to employ, (2) utilize contract structures that incentivize the players to maximize their on-field performance, and (3) manage the Colts' cap situation to maximize the team's flexibility.

Implementing this strategy (particularly the first part) may necessarily cause some temporary weaknesses at certain positions - such as releasing Hankins - but I think he believes the Colts will be stronger and leaner (from a cap perspective) when this is complete. It also may cause the Colts to lose out on some of the big name free agents, since they aren't necessarily interested in the type of contract the Colts will want to use and will have better options elsewhere, but I'm guessing that in most instances Ballard believes the second or third best option is a better value for his strategy anyways. Presumably, he's keeping the Colt's ammo dry for when a truly great free agent option presents itself, and in those circumstances maybe he'd be willing to stray from the his normal approach. But paying Moncrief $9-11M or Melvin $10M+ a year (I know he only got $6.5M, but reports are that he wanted this from the Colts) probably isn't smart and certainly not consistent with this approach.

It takes some guts to do this, because he's being roundly criticized in the media and by fans, but I think he's shown he's a strong leader and believes in what he's trying to accomplish. And I really think its premature to criticize this offseason until it's over.

Personally I agree that this is largely Ballard’s intentions. I just don’t believe it necessary nor the ideal path to follow. And I think it’s a very blurry line as to whether or not it is tanking. I don’t think Ballard is actively attempting to lose games so I’d stop short of calling in that. But he is actively and knowingly throwing away multiple seasons and the draft capital that results from those losses figure heavily in his plans. I’d say he’s on the safe side of that description but just barely.

As far as him having the guts to do it I don’t really care. IMO he’s unnecessarily wasting seasons with a franchise QB. He’s decided on a 3-4 yr rebuild and if Luck gets killed or pissed in the process so be it. I don’t see it as guts, I see it as arrogance. He better kill the draft. He needs an even better showing than last year. We are in yr two of his rebuild and the holes on the roster have only expanded. Especially after he just cut his big free agent signing from last year.

Cap flexibility is great, but it doesn’t win football games or protect franchise QBs from Jacksonville’s pass rush. When Luck and his surgically repaired shoulder is getting killed next year hopefully he will be comforted in knowing Ballard maintained flexibility.

[rcubed]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I don’t think this is true at all. To begin with, neither free agency nor the draft is complete, so you don’t really know what the team will look like on opening week of the season. You are panicking. There are all sorts of opportunities out there – restricted free agents, trades, draft etc. Yes, most of the big names are gone, but I don’t think these guys necessarily fit Ballard’s long term strategy anyway.

Second, Ballard isn’t writing off three years – he can’t in this era of free agency. In three years, many of his draft picks will be gearing up for their own free agency, and I think its critical to his strategy that a large proportion of the team continue to be on their rookie contracts.

Third, what do Hankins/Melvin have to do with Luck anyways? By your line of thinking, a weakened defense will actually protect Luck because he won’t be able to be on the field as much. So you should celebrate their absence! Regardless, the Hankins/Melvin decisions were undoubtedly driven by Ballard’s cost/benefit analysis. By not spending on them now, he can use their salaries later on players who better fit the schemes – and before you start talking about how much cap space they already have, remember that the cap minimums are judged on a four year basis. Even if he doesn’t spend the savings this year, he can still bank it for a later year to spend on our own free agents or on an outside free agent. The game is to maximize your cap currency, not simply to spend like a drunken sailor on leave – and that’s what I personally believe paying Melvin $10M+ would be a fair comparison to. Nice player, no question, but if you pay enough Melvins you won’t be able to pay the truly special players too - there’s always going to be Melvin/Moncrief/Grant types available, but it can be devastating to overpay them. To just complain that we lost Melvin or Hankins is meaningless unless you can also make the case that their salaries are justified as well. The two go hand in hand.

testcase doesnt understand logic, hurts his brain.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Second, Ballard isn’t writing off three years – he can’t in this era of free agency. In three years, many of his draft picks will be gearing up for their own free agency, and I think its critical to his strategy that a large proportion of the team continue to be on their rookie contracts

This is year two and it seems pretty obvious Ballard isn’t attempting to compete next year. By your own description of his process that is plainly clear. So is next year the magical year where he will be willing to use all of the cap flexibility he’s maintained at the expense of building a team and protecting his QB? I guess we’ll see but I’m pretty damn skeptical. I’m guessing we hear the same mantra next off season since we are going to still have tons of holes to fill and we won’t really know what we have in this years crop of rookies yet. Biggest jump in performance is typically between year one and two right? So we have to be patient and see what these guys become before we start throwing around cap space and actually signing guys.

I don’t understand why everyone that defends Ballard’s plan is so against admitting it’s a 3-4 year plan before they are truly competitive. I mean we are in year 2 and the roster is full of holes that will be manned next year by rookies. How can that not be a 3-4 year plan? If you agree with the method why can’t you admit what it is?

[rcubed]

Originally Posted by rm1369

This is year two and it seems pretty obvious Ballard isn’t attempting to compete next year. By your own description of his process that is plainly clear. So is next year the magical year where he will be willing to use all of the cap flexibility he’s maintained at the expense of building a team and protecting his QB? I guess we’ll see but I’m pretty damn skeptical. I’m guessing we hear the same mantra next off season since we are going to still have tons of holes to fill and we won’t really know what we have in this years crop of rookies yet. Biggest jump in performance is typically between year one and two right? So we have to be patient and see what these guys become before we start throwing around cap space and actually signing guys.

I don’t understand why everyone that defends Ballard’s plan is so against admitting it’s a 3-4 year plan before they are truly competitive. I mean we are in year 2 and the roster is full of holes that will be manned next year by rookies. How can that not be a 3-4 year plan? If you agree with the method why can’t you admit what it is?

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

[FatDT]

The idea that it's too early to criticize the off-season, specifically free agency, makes no sense to me. Free agency moves fast. So fast the NFL created the assinine "legal tampering" period. And based on interviews I've read, teams and players still start talking earlier than they're supposed to.

Teams don't tamper with JAGs. They push for every advantage they can get to sign the best players in FA. What is it we are supposed to wait for before we develop an opinion on the moves the Colts do and don't make? There aren't more moves to be made. We whiffed on all the sure fire upgrades for the OL. All we could get was a 32 year old who apparently sucked at guard the last time he played there. At $3M for a single season, it doesn't appear he's expected to start. Maybe he'll get the chance to compete there, but is it likely? I've said it before, but it's clear Ballard knows the OL needs to be better. He wouldn't have tried to get Norwell, Jensen, or Pugh otherwise. Slauson isn't a solution to that problem. He's a "hopefully, but probably not".

Also don't see any reason to wait on anything related to releasing Hankins. There's nothing else to be decided there. Either you buy the idea that he can't play in our new defense or you don't.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by FatDT

The idea that it's too early to criticize the off-season, specifically free agency, makes no sense to me.

Of course not, but it is to lose your freaking mind about what has or hasn't been done. Something you are clearly not doing.

[FatDT]

Originally Posted by Butter

Of course not, but it is to lose your freaking mind about what has or hasn't been done. Something you are clearly not doing.

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".