General off-season news thread

[Pez]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

Briskett got exposed once NFL defenses got tape on him. This team needs a better QB.

I agree that this happened, but I think it is an over simplified view. Briskett was injured, then our #4 wr was playing in ty Hilton's spot. There's not much to figure out when we are holding up a sign saying we cant pass the ball.

Yes brissett had a bad second half of the season, but I dont think you can attribute more than a third of that to teams getting tape on him.

I guess what would be an example of something they are seeing brissett do on film that teams were able to adjust for?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by Oldcolt

Nobody has any idea of what Ballard is going to do, probably including him. He doesn't seem to be blowing smoke up our asses and knows that Brissett has big time limitations. I'm sure he wants an upgrade but who and how much does it cost? We are in a bad place, middle of the road team that needs a quarterback.

Can’t be giving away draft plans to ease fan anxiety. We are just going to have to wait and see.

[apballin]

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish

So you would be happy with Trubisky or Winston?

No id stick with brissett over those 2, I was thinking more like whatever QB they draft because I don’t see Ballard signing another QB to take brissett spot

[Pez]

I hope fromm declares. We could likely get a dt in the first and then trade up to get fromm in the early second. I like his decisiveness and accuracy. If anything he holds on the the ball a bit too long.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[njcoltfan]

Originally Posted by Pez

I hope fromm declares. We could likely get a dt in the first and then trade up to get fromm in the early second. I like his decisiveness and accuracy. If anything he holds on the the ball a bit too long.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I think you should be able to pick Fromm up in the 3rd round

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Where did I criticize Ballard for not panicking? My point with dam is that nothing Ballard has done previously indicates he values the QB position to the degree he would make the risky decision to sign Bridgewater to a big contract or trade all of his draft capital to move up in the draft. He’s pretty much said and done the exact opposite in his time here. That’s my point with dam.

Agree that Bridgewater isn’t likely the way that Ballard would go, but I could see an expensive trade up if he believed the target was a likely to be a franchise QB.

Originally Posted by rm1369

As to the rest of it, you and I will never agree, but it’s not nitpicking to criticize Ballard’s decision to follow a long term rebuild with a franchise QB on the roster. I’ve been saying it since he started. With a franchise QB in place it was the wrong decision. I stand by that assessment. I’m sure you’ll point out Luck’s retirement was unforeseen and screwed it all up. I get that, however I’m on the record in our discussions saying that he shouldn’t be looking more than about 2 years ahead anyway because shit changes too quickly for a 4-5 year plan. So while the specific circumstance was unforeseen the fact something changed everything before he completed his master plan is not.

Well said, but I disagree. I won’t rehash our old debates here, but suffice it to say that I do not see Ballard’s approach as conservative or risk averse, but rather simply practical. The guy has always been a long term thinker, and clearly has a very specific idea about building a team – create a culture first, keep young, and use competition as a motivational factor. Reward those who excel in your system. That kind of an engine takes a few years to build, but should produce reliable performance once constructed.

As far as free agents are concerned, he’s called free agency “fool’s gold”, so he obviously doesn’t see it as a desirable way to build a team. No surprise there. Nevertheless, he’s been in the bidding for a number of high profile free agents, but the prices just went too high for the value he placed on the player. He also signed two risky free agents - Funchess and Houston – to large (though short) contracts last off-season.

Originally Posted by rm1369

Look, I like the guy. I have never asked for him to be fired. You can spin how close they were to a one and done playoff birth all you want, but IMO this team is further away from a title today than it was the day Ballard was hired. Thats with or without Luck ever coming back from the shoulder injury. The roster is just improved enough that they won’t be in the running for a top QB prospect without mortgaging the future to move up.

To suggest that we are further from a title now than when Ballard was hired seems ludicrous, particularly since you exclude Luck from this analysis. Go look at our 2017 roster, excluding Luck. We are now younger at nearly every position, and as good as or better at nearly every position as well – particularly RB, OL, and LB. Complain all you want about our current stable of WRs, but we were severely hampered by injuries, and in 2017 we were fielding the likes of Kamar Aiken, Donte Moncrief and Quan Bray.

I suppose your point is that by being merely average now, it will be harder to get the high draft picks to launch yourself to the head of the class. However, that hasn’t necessarily been true in recent years either, as the top recent QBs (Mahomes, Jackson, Watson) have all be drafted in the mid-to-late first round.

Anyway, I’m glad you like the guy, because my hope is that he stays around a long time. I think he’s one of the best – if not THE best – GM in the league, though his resume doesn’t show it yet. It’s a real bummer that Luck retired.

Originally Posted by rm1369

The three most important positions for winning in the NFL are QB, LT, and pass rusher. Right now the Colts have questions or holes at all 3, so I’m not nearly as optimistic as you. And I sure as hell don’t see any glimpse of the dynasty you and Ballard have been envisioning.

I think that’s pretty unfair to say - 2 of the 3 positions you mentioned (QB and LT) were locked down prior to the season (albeit by people drafted pre-Ballard), and Ballard had no reason to think otherwise until the Luck retirement and the threat of a Castonzo retirement reared its head.

As for pass rusher, he’s drafted a few promising ones (Turay and Banogu) and signed a big name free agent DE (Houston). Admittedly still a work in progress, but outside of taking Chubb instead of Nelson in 2018, what moves didn’t Ballard make that you believe would have helped here? I don't think keeping John Simon would have made that big a difference.

[Luck4Reich]

The constant talk that this team is years away from good is just plain stupid by some.

Fact is they were Super Bowl contenders if Luck had not retired.... and Luck wasn’t an elite QB.....yet.

The fact this team won 7 games (beat 3 playoff teams that are still in it) with Brisset (a QB that is a backup on ALL 32 teams and 3rd string on a few) is why this team is not years away. Just stupid talk!

Tannehill for example, not even on Lucks level but a hell of a lot better than Brisset takes this Colts team deep into the playoffs.

Fact is, a capable starting QB on this team makes them a playoff team. Anything close to Luck a contender for sure.

Stop the doom and gloom we are closer than you think.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Reward those who excel in your system. That kind of an engine takes a few years to build, but should produce reliable performance once constructed.

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?

Originally Posted by Chaka

He also signed two risky free agents - Funchess and Houston – to large (though short) contracts last off-season.

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.

Originally Posted by Chaka

To suggest that we are further from a title now than when Ballard was hired seems ludicrous, particularly since you exclude Luck from this analysis. Go look at our 2017 roster, excluding Luck......

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.

Originally Posted by Chaka

I think that’s pretty unfair to say - 2 of the 3 positions you mentioned (QB and LT) were locked down prior to the season (albeit by people drafted pre-Ballard), and Ballard had no reason to think otherwise until the Luck retirement and the threat of a Castonzo retirement reared its head.

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.

Also, needing an eventual replacement for AC was talked about by plenty of people. Here is part of one of my posts regarding the drafting of Nelson. I love the guy. How could you not? But a lot of people at the time were concerned about the tackle position more than guard. An immediate upgrade at RT that could replace AC down the road was a viable option to improve the line. And would have added an additional piece with the trade back. I don’t want to turn this in to a Nelson debate - if ever a guard was worth the 6th pick it’s Nelson. I’m simply pointing out that it is not a huge surprise that tackle is a need. And for as great as Nelson is, the line hasn’t played great without a good LT (with AC out).

Originally Posted by rm1369

My point has simply been that Nelson was not the only option available to Ballard. Possibly not even the best. Even when taking into account his failure to address it previously. I’d say a good argument could be made that trading back and walking away with McGlinchey or Miller and then adding Smith would have improved the line tremendously as well. Many said predraft that tackle was the biggest issue for the line, so that’s not hindsight. And I could argue the long term outlook of the line would be brighter with a solid tackle in place to slide to the left side in a year or two. Or whenever Castonzo is hurt.

[Racehorse]

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?



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.



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.



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.

Also, needing an eventual replacement for AC was talked about by plenty of people. Here is part of one of my posts regarding the drafting of Nelson. I love the guy. How could you not? But a lot of people at the time were concerned about the tackle position more than guard. An immediate upgrade at RT that could replace AC down the road was a viable option to improve the line. And would have added an additional piece with the trade back. I don’t want to turn this in to a Nelson debate - if ever a guard was worth the 6th pick it’s Nelson. I’m simply pointing out that it is not a huge surprise that tackle is a need. And for as great as Nelson is, the line hasn’t played great without a good LT (with AC out).

You can't tell me that if Luck hadn't retired and if we had stayed healthy that this team couldn't have competed with the top of the league this year, or at least the top of the AFC. Ballard did it right, but things went very south for us from the day Luck retired all through the myriad of injuries, from Turay to TY.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

You can't tell me that if Luck hadn't retired and if we had stayed healthy that this team couldn't have competed with the top of the league this year, or at least the top of the AFC. Ballard did it right, but things went very south for us from the day Luck retired all through the myriad of injuries, from Turay to TY.

Racehorse, when I said the team is further away regardless of Luck I think I should have clarified. I didn’t mean with Luck on this current team they are further away (yes that would be a ridiculous statement), I meant if Luck had never came back from the shoulder injury. That was the concern at the time Ballard took the job - that Luck would never recover and was done. IIRC there were rumors of him considering retirement then. That’s what I’m referring to. And again, that wasn’t so much a knock on Ballard (I understand he wouldn’t be looking for a QB if he expected Luck to return) as a comment on the perceived optimism because of the mediocre season and facing an offseason with no QB, possibly no LT, and huge question marks on the pass rush.

I disagree that Ballard did it right though even when I agree Lucks retirement screwed him. They lost to KC in the playoffs largely because of holes that were evident before the season started. Ballard did little to address them because of his long term plan. And if Luck had played this year IMO Ballard still was rolling with the long term over what was lacking for this season. If they went to the AFC title game with Luck but lost because of a lack of a pass rush and poor interior DLine play, you’d be saying the plan was all working. I’d see it as a missed opportunity. Just the difference in our views.

Again, I’ll point out that the exact reason I believe in being more aggressive is because of how quickly it all changes. Did I expect Luck to retire because of an off season leg injury? Of course not. But I absolutely did realize he was always one play away from not being the Colts QB going forward. That’s why wasting seasons banking on guys like Tyquan Lewis, Terrell Basham, and Quincy Wilson pissed me off. It’s why I thought it was stupid to cut guys like Simons and Hankins. You don’t gift guys spots, you make them earn it. But Ballards plan wasn’t to put the best team he could out there last year or this year. It was to do exactly what Chaka said - build that supposed base for long term success. Sounds great, but don’t use the unpredictable nature of the NFL as an excuse when it’s the very reason I argued against that method.