The colts are one game over 500. I am pretty sure that is about where most people here expected them to be. We will see where they end up. If they are 9-7 or 10-6, that is awesome. But how could anyone not wonder what they could have been if they tried harder.

The packers have an all world qb and they have 1 super bowl win to show for it. They believe in Ballard’s approach. Polian was the same way with manning. They won 1 super bowl.

The patriots on the other hand use any means necessary to add talent. They are constantly in the super bowl or the afc title game.

Andrew Luck is an all world qb. Why anyone would want to limit him at any time? You go all in every year. I will never fault a coach or gm for trying to win.

I am not going to name guys I wanted at this point. I don’t remember. And it doesn’t matter. It’s not my job. I don’t have all the information Ballard does.

I hear Bell is intrigued about playing alongside a healthy Luck.

I know I wanted Norwell, as did most of us on here. However, hindsight says I was wrong about him. Now, did Ballard know how it would work out without him? I doubt he did and think he likely feels very fortunate in how it ultimately worked out for us.

My panties aren’t in a twist. I’m fully enjoying watching the young guys. I just believe the team could easily be in a better position than they are now if not for the forced youth movement. And where you apparently don’t see value in a playoff appearance, I see a lot of value for a young team. Especially with an elite QB playing at the top of his game.

Just curious, and don't feel like doing the research, but does anyone know which free agents performed equal or better for the amount of the signing this year.

Chaka made a thread a week or two ago about an article from sportrac ranking teams free agent hauls. It attempts to evaluate players against their contracts.

http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=58190

People keep throwing out the biggest of the big name free agents from last year. This team has lost 4 close games that came down to just a few plays. You don't need a $20 million free agent to swing 4 games that are that close, at least to the point where two of the four would become wins--and at that point, they would be fully in the driver's seat for the division. Forget Norwell, remember all the drops from the receivers over those close games? Sure, that's hopefully behind them now, but one more veteran receiver for 1 year, $6 million could've been useful when no one else could catch the ball. I've given the example of John Brown before, yet everyone is too busy citing Norwell as the only example since I guess he was linked to a bit of interest from the Colts. I don't care who wanted Norwell--that takes one Google search for "top free agents by position" to come to that brilliant idea that the Colts should have him on their want list.

I'll offer another option--trades. If you honestly looked at the depth and thought the WR position was good to go at the start of the year, great. It has turned into a strength, but again, those close games with the drops told a different story at the time. Kevin White on the Bears. Bears fans seem to think he's a bust, but who knows if it's just because he had a shaky Trubisky throwing to him last year. Maybe he does suck, but maybe he's better than Chester Rogers as your best option when another guy gets dinged.

Is anyone up for making a run at Le'veon Bell next off season? Good runner, great pass blocker and catcher. Had a rep for being good in locker room. Hard nose player that seems to fit in what we are trying to build around here. Would improve running and passing game. We keep our draft picks. Cost us a ton of money but then what are we saving it for if not an elite difference maker in his prime? For me, this is the kind of guy you throw money at.

So you're "pretty sure" that most people were expecting the colts to be above .500 at this point? Really? Because I distinctly recall a lot more dire predictions, particularly when the Colts didn't sign the big name free agents that they were rumored to be interested in. I also recall several people, yourself included, openly complaining about Ballard's draft picks and the terrible roster he had assembled. Now you want to rewrite history to suggest that you expected this all along. Not so.

And I don't accept your premise that the Manning-led Colts failed to win more than one Super Bowl because they weren't spending in free agency. Please back up that statement with some facts because, honestly, your posts are pretty light on them. Talent was never the problem with those Colts - we had plenty back then. We won the division nearly every year, and set plenty of offensive records. But we lost a lot of playoff games we should have won, whether due to coaching, player performance or just plain bad luck. And before your Patriots envy gets out of control, remember who you're speaking about - they're convicted cheaters, so please don't cite to them as an example of model organization.

The idea that you go "all in" on free agency every year is short-sighted and limiting. This isn't FanDuel - you can have a long term plan. For the umpteenth time, I'll repeat again that the unused cap space this year is NOT LOST - it will still be there next year, and the next. The idea is to get the most out of your resources. Ballard's plan, as he has expressed it himself, is to let the team create a culture organically before adding big personalities/paychecks - particularly on defense. This plan is working. Not only are we outperforming this year, but we will have a built-in competitive advantage going forward for then next several years by virtue of our increased cap space.

But yet you endlessly complain about their failure to spend THIS year, and the Colts failure to sign these theoretical "good" players who would have improved the Colts without disturbing the progress they have already made. It's an easy and cheap complaint, but has no substance.

And that better position in 2018 could have hurt their chances in future years. For example, say you sign Norwell to a massive deal and he goes the way of Jack Mewhort. That cap burden limits your flexibility to add or re-sign an important player or players in a year when you actually have a chance to win a title.

Love him as a player, but don’t love that cap hit for a RB. Also, is anyone else scared off by the way his Steelers teammates talked about him and pillaged his locker this year?

Why would a decent receiver sign a one year prove-it deal like that with all the uncertainty about Luck? I would have loved that kind of deal you suggest, but ittakes two to tango. Indy was not a desirable destination in UFA last year. This year, on the other hand...

WTF are you talking about? This isn't a "see, I told you so" discussion. This is a discussion about whether, with the benefit of knowing how things played out after 11 games, it was a good idea not to bring in a bunch of free agents last offseason. Please point me to the posts where I made the arguments you mention.

I was simply making the point that, looking back with the benefit of hindsight, pursuing the aggressive free agency course that you and others (Omaha) have advocated could have resulted in a much different roster makeup than we presently have. Then you wouldn't be complaining about the free agency approach, but would probably complain about the team's performance.

I used Norwell as an example. Signing him probably means that we don't pick Nelson. Great, I'm sure you say. Setting that issue aside, so then who do we pick instead? My personal guess is Roquan Smith, as the Colts were rumored to like him and, indeed, the Colts very next pick was a LB (Leonard). Smith's a good player, no question, but does that mean we don't take Leonard in the 2nd? So in this scenario it comes down to this:

1. Andrew Norwell+ Roquan Smith + 2nd Rounder
2. Quenton Nelson + Darius Leonard + $66.5 million in cap space (Norwell's contract)

What do you prefer? I much prefer the second group.

And by the way, this is a cop out

Fair point, but not relevant to this particular discussion. Regardless of whether he did or did not pursue these players, the question is whether - knowing what we know now - was it better that he didn't?

It’s absolutely a relevant response to those that pretend it was the team’s plan all along, in order to get the young players experience and establish a culture.

Ballard said this in March:


I'm not sure anyone is pretending that this was his plan all along.

He seems to be hinting that he wants to come play in this offense, so I am warming to the idea of him coming here. However, it could be that he is enticing the team with the best chance of success who just also happens to be able to pay him an outrageous sum of money. I think he could be a missing piece for a SB team, but only if we get two or three defensive studs this off-season to go with him.

Then why has Ballard pursued top-end free agents at all?

Check out the prediction thread. People thought this team would be 7-10 win range. Exactly where we will end up. So no, this isn’t surprising to anyone. And let’s stop pretending this is a great roster. It isn’t. Look at the teams we are playing. They aren’t that good.

Polian has issues at the dt spot year after year he couldn’t fix through the draft. He signed his own free agents to hefty deals. He couldn’t draft well enough to put together complete teams.

You go all in to win. That doesn’t mean you can’t also plan for the future. I am not calling for a max spend every year. Guys like Mitchell and Inman are a perfect example of guys I am talking about. They vastly improved our depth at least. Both should be starters. They aren’t impeding anyone’s progress.

I don’t care. Ballard should know what vets are better than Arthur Maulet and fit the locker room.

Stop saying this was Ballards plan. He was hesitant to pull trigger on Free agents because he didn't know what Luck was going to do.

When you have the great QB you are never rebuilding and always reloading because you cant afford to waste their years.

Exactly! This is what he and his staff get paid to do.

I don't pay much attention to it, but who was available that you would have suggested over Maulet? I know he is terrible, but I am looking for someone who fits the mold of Mitchell and Inman, guys who are on the street now that could come in and contribute. Heck, I would accept a name of a guy who was unsigned going into training camp.

Breeland was a guy they kicked the tires on. I think he is a starter for the packers.

Where did you find that stat?


Walk Worthy,

I don't think he's outright against free agents, obviously, he just takes a very measured approach. From the quote:

"...Then you feel better about dipping into free agency and getting a guy. Not just good players, they need to be able to influence the locker room with their character...."

Bell sits out a season and leaves his team hanging. Over money. Then makes a comment on Twitter that is essentially, "Just imagine [how good the Colts would be If I was on the team]"

Right or wrong, how do you think Bell would "influence the locker room with his character?" Positively or negatively?

Pretty sure it's this.
https://i.redd.it/n0gdun8l5x021.jpg

I'm undecided on Bell. I don't necessarily see it as him leaving his team hanging. He didn't sign a contract and then hold out. He didn't want to sign Pittsburgh's contract offer, so he didn't. He was a top 3 RB for several seasons, and by all accounts he was a good locker room guy before all this. My problem with him would be the money and the potential for suspensions.

I also don't want this to seem like I am killing Ballard unnecessarily. I like Ballard. He's done some very good things. And I think he's been pretty humble, he's admitted mistakes and said he wants to learn from them. I don't have a big problem with Ballard. I just see some people (and it is possible I am conflating opinions I read here with things said elsewhere) wanting to encompass all outcomes and say "See, it was all according to Ballard's plan, what a genius, anyone that doubts is not a true fan, blah blah blah."

I'm not into hero worship. It's absurd. I hated it when Polian was here. I don't want that nonsense again.

Ballard has a plan

Ballard has a plan

Ballard has a plan

Every GM has a plan. Let's hope his doesn't end in termination. I am hopeful and like I said like some things he has done. I also hope he doesn't waste too many years of Lucks. They will eventually run out.

Okay, let's play this out, but you have to look at it as though it were July 2018. You cannot use the time since then in your argument.

In July 2018, you had these players rostered at those positions:

WR:
Hilton
Grant
Rogers
Cain
Fountain

Safety:
Hooker
Geathers
Farley

At WR, I'll acknowledge an argument that Inman might be a slight upgrade to Grant/Rogers, but I don't think that was obvious at the time. I would have been against adding Inman at the time because he would take reps away from the rookies, particularly Cain. At that point, you would be adding Inman primarily in a ST role, which he doesn't fit.

At safety, it's a similar situation. Your argument amounts to advocating that they should have cut Farley and replaced him with Mitchell.

How is this year a waste? What do you think the ceiling was even if they used up all available cap space?

Please read.... I said I hope he doesn't waste too many years... I didnt say "This year is a waste"

If he makes the right moves next season great.. if not he is wasting Luck.

Grant and Rogers aren’t better than Inman. And Mitchell might be the best safety on our roster.

People are paid well to know this. The point is, there were better players on the street that we could have added to make this team better. And they weren’t that pricey.

If he doesn't make the right moves next year, will Ballard have wasted "years" of Luck?

Technically 3 years of Luck gone at that point. 3 years to build something around him so yes!

As a fan I’m really enjoying this year so to me it’s not a waste. Plus it’s great that we get to actually have meaningful discussion about our roster, something we never did last year. It’s a hell of a lot more fun than waiting for the freakin draft

And I still say it doesn't matter. Inman's and Mitchell's aren't making the Colts a Super Bowl contender this year.

Honestly, what is the goal you're working against with all of these critiques?

Thus, you are saying that 2018 is a waste.