Generally I think Ballard is doing a great job. But if I had a criticism of him, it’s that he is reactive not preemptive when it comes to roster deficiencies. Year one, doesn’t do enough to fix the oline even though everyone knew it was a problem. Year two, doesn’t do enough for the pass rush even though everyone knew it was an issue. Is year three the interior dline?

True it does roll over. But are they just going to roll it over every year? Will they constantly be 40 50 60 million under the cap? I like signing our own guys but, does that mean we have to have 50 million in unused cap every year? Leonard’s class is still three years away. Teams that have talent rookie QBs try to max their window till that big contract comes. We have two all-pro rookies, a McCoy signing is not going to break the bank.

At the end of the day, I have to believe that Ballard did not believe that McCoy was just not going to improve the defense enough to make the commitment.

I doubt that $$$ even played into it. Strictly a football decision. We can all debate whether or not we believe that McCoy would have improved the Colts defense...and sure that's fun to do.

/thread

That makes no sense

Clearly the answer is to just draft two all pro rookies every year. Problem solved.

Well obviously.

They want them light. Look at the young QBs in the NFL right now, you need to be able to catch them. How many teams line up with a full back and run power football? How many teams play more in shotgun/pistol/throw formation?

Big fat guys can't push the pocket. This is the Dungy D and they are going to line up in a gap and go. With the guys they had last year, they had both DT's in the A gaps. Makes 3 guys defend 2. Sure can't trap block with the C if they do that.

I get what you are saying. But the NFL offenses are not as they were 5 years ago.

If you rooted for the Colts during the Dungy era it's hard not to be concerned about a small team. This team seems different in that the players don't seem 'small' just light. They have length and are solid muscular men. Speed and quickness are their main trait. I think Jaff got it right, it's a different NFL offense this defense will be called upon to stop. Hope we get it right.

Dude, I’m honestly having a difficult time following what you’re saying. What is “circular” about what I’ve said? In no way does Ballard’s approach mean that you don’t sign any outside free agents or that they can’t improve your team. It’s only that you rarely find VALUE in the high end or big name free agents when you consider their contract price. That money would be better spent signing your own players who: (1) you are more familiar with, (2) have proven themselves in your schemes, and (3) provide team continuity, identity and character.

Do you ever consider the fact that the best players rarely reach free agency? They are resigned by their teams. The vast majority of the free agents are players that their former teams didn’t want at the price they’d command on the open market (i.e. the same price you’d have the Colts pay). And yes, I know that every team is different, and because a player doesn’t fit with his original team doesn’t mean he won’t fit with the Colts, but what I’ve said is true of a overwhelming majority of free agents.

And I think that its far more likely that a free agent will underperform rather than overperform. That likelihood is compounded when you are signing a guy who’s already on the downside of his career, like McCoy. Add to that the uncertainty that is created when you ask a player to move to an entirely new team/scheme - an uncertainty that doesn’t exist, by the way, when you sign your own free agents. In short, spending money on your own players isn’t exciting, but it will likely yield far better returns than spending money on outside free agents. If you maximize value, the wins will come.

All of this boils down to the fact that everyone’s typically happy when the free agent is signed, but usually will end up feeling buyer’s remorse. Given this, I’ve liked Ballard’s free agent approach – mining the middle and lower tier free agents for value, and with a much smaller downside.

Image post FAIL. It looked so easy. If you like Dilbert, you would have appreciated it.

I don’t think that’s fair at all. When Ballard took over we were deficient in many areas – so to now single out the OL in year one to argue he didn’t do enough is silly. And to say that he didn’t address the pass rush in year two is also unfair – he drafted Turay and Lewis as part of his overall plan to build a long term sustainable team. To complain that he didn’t bring in a bunch of one year rentals or high priced free agents ignores the overall plan he has laid out repeatedly. And the plan is working by the way – we are far ahead of where almost everyone thought we’d be at this time.

As far as cap management, of course we won’t be $40M-$60M under the cap every year – that’s not the plan at all. It’s a temporary condition that will disappear in a couple of years when the Colts have to start issuing second contracts. Then you’ll be plenty thankful for the extra cap space Ballard has conserved.

The goal is to maximize team performance over the long term. Those of you who simply say we should blow out our cap space every year in pursuit of a championship THAT YEAR aren’t listening to what Ballard has been saying. That’s one approach, sure, but it’s a short term one that runs counter to the long term plans the guy has been outlining since he got to Indy. You can’t have it both ways.

But I never said that. No one on here has ever said we should blow all our cap space on FA’s. As usual you take what I say and blow it out of proportion. Because there is only two avenues with you. Either save it all and have tons of money under the cap (the only method you endorse) or avenue two which is spend it all on high priced free agents who won’t possibly work out because it’s fools gold.

Oh and Ballard criticized himself saying he didn’t do enough to fix the oline year one.

I just advocate being smart – investing the cap space in players that are likely to bring the greatest return, and avoiding investments that have historically not provided much value in comparison to their cost (i.e. big name free agents). In other words, I advocate running the team like a business, not like a fan, and with the eye towards long term, sustainable success. We should play the angles, using our money to our greatest advantage in the context of the NFL salary cap rules. Being smart and efficient will, over time, give us a huge advantage over the teams that aren't.

Do I think this means we have to “save it all and have tons of money under the cap”? Of course not. I just mentioned in a few posts above that I agreed that we should sign free agents, but that I think our focus is best placed on mid-tier or lower tier guy because they give us the best chance to get a good return on the investment.

I simply don’t think signing older, outside free agents to large contracts is a good investment. For that reason I was uneasy with the Houston signing. He was an expensive player who is on the downside of his career, but I’m hopeful that it has a better-than-normal chance to succeed because the guy isn’t a total outsider – Ballard worked with him while in KC so presumably he has some insight. I also didn’t complain about the Funchess signing – the guy is 25 with upside, so the $10 million didn’t bother me - in fact, the only thing that troubled me was that it was a one-year deal without options.

As far as the OL is concerned, I didn’t argue that the OL was fine following Ballard’s first year or that it couldn’t be improved, but only that your conclusion that he was reactive rather than proactive was unfair because it was founded solely upon the OL alone, without consideration of the giant strides he made elsewhere. You cherry-picked one issue to support your predetermined conclusion, while ignoring all of the evidence that contradicted your theory.

And as to the idea that “no one on here has said we should blow all our cap space on FA’s”, maybe you should read or think about some of the posts more closely. Yes, people don’t use those exact words, but the argument that Luck’s presence should mean that we should not hold back on free agent spending is essentially saying the same thing or something very close. It’s true you didn’t say that in your post (nor did I exactly, for that matter), but I’ve seen some version of that argument advocated many times on here in the past – most recently Colts Classic a few posts above, when he said that when “you have Andrew Luck, every year should be a year in which you are going for it” and so we should have signed McCoy, which is what I was thinking of when I typed my post.

That is great and all until you need to stop short-yardage runs or a team just runs the fuck over you. As Defenses get lighter a smart team will come out and power run all over them.

Signing McCoy wouldn't have come close to blowing all of the cap space. I'm not even that upset that he went to Carolina. My main complaint is that the Colts weren't even in the running. They are saying, "No thanks, we're good enough" which is foolish. It costs zero dollars to be in the running and be a serious buyer--even if they don't land the player, maybe they cause a rival to overpay.

I guess it just concerns me that if Autry or Hunt go down or both? Ouch.
Neither have been a constant in their career. Either or both could regress.
McCoy was an upgrade and created nice depth at the same time. It was a kiss by Ballard. I love what he is done so far and hopefully this time next tear we are talking about how he made the right choice. Hopefully.

You don't know that. It is possible McCoy wasn't interested in a visit.

Which is why the Colts have a big freaking O line, control the ball with play action and option pass offense. They get to the lead and now their FAST defense can go get the QB.

The D you want is what Pagano ran.

I advocate running the team like a football team trying to win games, not a business, not as a fan. That means fielding the most complete team you can to increase your chances of getting to a Super Bowl.

Running it as a business would mean you maximize profit while minimizing expenses. The point is to win Super Bowls, not increase your profit margin no matter what. I’m in favor of maximizing their chances year in and year out. You want to make a money ball argument about signing free agents? Go ahead. But you get all squirrely every time we sign someone and then we get the same posts. A long lecture on what Ballard’s vision is, as if everyone on here doesn’t already know it, then some hand wringing about him spending too much money and potentially wasting all the cap space. Ballard isn’t going to waste it, and he is also going to sign free agents. He inquirers about the top free agents every year, and we are in on some till a team blows the offer out of the water. Then we back off because the costs outweigh the benefits.

Ballard is trying to identify guys that are potentially going to break out in their second contract. Some guys are late bloomers, especially linemen. Guys that might be buried on depth charts and need reps to improve. Also vets can provide a boost, but you need to go by a case by case basis. Free agency is not a fix all, and it isn’t fools gold either. We got good production out of Hunt, Autry, and other signings. You can build teams in multiple ways. You want to build through the draft? Great, you need to hit on picks. You want to build through FA? Great you need to hit on your signings. It comes down to evaluating personnel and making the right decisions whatever your methodology.

Preemptive, not proactive. Ballard is proactive. But the last couple years everyone on here has complained about obvious holes on the roster. Everyone can see them. They are not addressed till after they are exposed. It’s happened twice so far. Ever teams has holes, you try to cover them the best you can. I would like to see more effort in that area.

I think you are the one who needs to work on the reading comprehension. I understand what Colt classic is saying in that statement, I don’t think you do though. That’s the problem.

The Ol will not stop the other team and relying on the offense to always have the lead is something we witnessed in the Manning years, it doesn;t always work especially in the playoffs. You really have a simple view of things if you think there is nothing in between what we had with Pagano and Dungy.

Nothing always works all the time. That's life. How did this team lose to Jax 6-0 last year? WTF. The offense stunk that day.

The NFL has morphed into a league with athletic QB's and play fast up and down the field. A large, slow D can't compete with speed. Speed never goes into a slump. A large slow D can't catch Pat Mahomes. And moving him off his spot doesn't seem to bother him, that guy can throw from any positon. So you need to go HIT him. And he's not the last of fast mobile QB's, he is the future. And does anyone have a power run system in the NFL other than Dallas?

Yeah, I'm keeping it simple, because I'm not a GM. I don't pretend to be one on the internet. And the Dungy D works because it is simple. Players don't have time to make decisions, so you give them less thinking and more doing. Defense is reacting, and then you get to the ball, all 11 guys. That's how you can play young guys with less experience.

And I believe if Ballard can draft a 310 lb DT who can run like Warren Sapp, he will take him. But those guys are rare. You he's not going to sign a guy 2 gap blocking sponge because that doesn't fit this D. They don't need Tony Sarigusa. They are looking for John Randle.

Speed most certainly does go into a slump--any playoff game ever played on a bad field would completely neutralize a bunch of lighter, faster players. That isn't as common with field turf and such but it always seems like there's one or two key games where the field conditions take away any speed advantage. I don't think world-class speed was going to solve KC in January.

Also, I think the people in this thread have a good grasp of the idea that Ted Washington and Tony Siragusa-type giants at DT are dinosaurs as far as this defense goes.

I’ll stop “lecturing” people about sound management of team resources when people stop trying to justify the signing of an over-the-hill player based upon the amount of cap space that we have. It’s a lame justification. And the only “hand wringing” I see is the anxiety that so many here have expressed over the large amount of cap space the Colts are sitting on.

Looking through all of the garbage in your last post, it doesn’t appear we even disagree very much in principle. Of course you need to draft well, and of course you need to make good free agent signings. That’s really all I’ve been saying all along. Where we disagree is how that strategy is implemented. It is indeed a cost benefit analysis, just as you’ve said, and I just don’t think the costs of signing the type of older players you’ve been advocating (like McCoy) are likely to provide a equivalent or greater benefit. Time will tell, I guess, and it certainly isn't impossible, but as we sit here today I just don’t think history suggests that’s a good move.

But I never said we shouldn’t sign free agents – that’s a ridiculous distortion – and with perhaps the exception of the Houston signing, I’ve only spoken up when people here start criticizing the team’s failure to sign a ultra high end free agent or an expensive castoff from another team. I praised the 2018 free agent class we signed, which led to a fair amount of criticism and similar comments last off season (perhaps even from you – but I’m not going to hunt down those comments right now), and had no problem with the Funchess signing except for the length of contract/lack of options stuff I mentioned. I’m not a big fan of the Houston signing – primarily for the costs and guarantees involved. That’s it.

P.S. So now Ballard is both reactive AND proactive - do I have that right? (sorry, couldn't resist)

How is McCoy over the Hill? Isnt he the same age as Houston?

He’s not, we just didn’t sign him so he’s over the hill.

Now I get it. :cool:

Come on, man. I am okay with us not signing him, but the dude is not over the hill. He may be at the start of a decline, but he has a couple of productive years left.

Out of everything I said, THAT's what you choose to focus on? My use of the phrase "over the hill"? That's really weak. I guess when you have nothing else to say, you're left with nitpicking terminology.

For what it's worth, in the context of an NFL player, I view "over the hill" as simply being past the player's prime - or in other words, on the downside of his career. By this definition, BOTH McCoy and Houston are over the hill in my view. You might have a different personal definition, but I'm pretty sure mine is reasonable. And I honestly can't believe this is what the discussion has devolved into.

He is the hill.

So fat slow guys do better on muddy fields than fast guys?? Same conditions. The law of inertia will tell you a smaller guy stops faster than a big guy moving the same speed. A bad field is a bad field for everybody.

The fact that we have available cap space was only one factor in signing McCoy, not the only factor. If you read through the thread you would know that, but I think you ignore it because it doesn't fit the narrative you are trying to establish. We actually don't disagree on very much, however you misinterpret things quite a bit and it is exhausting.

Maybe some appreaciate the lectures, I already have an MBA and I don't think your 'run it like a business' model is applicable to building a winning football team. The problem is I just don't think you know a whole lot about football. The fact that the only problem you have with the Funchess signing is that it is one year contract reinforces that notion. If you don't know much about football it is hard to tell what is a good decision and a bad decision concerning personnel. So you fall back on a trope of arguing against over-paying for free agents and big names. "Oh no stupid fans, they don't know what they are talking about. They just want to sign big name players past their prime. I better tell them how you are suppossed to run a football team." Well that isn't really the case here. Considering we have a ton of cap space, makes it more a football fit argument than a cap argument concerning McCoy. If you want to argue that spending money on McCoy will keep us from resigning our own guys, fine do that. Look at the free agents for next year. Some of these guys we will resign, more I think we will replaced through the draft. But just saying "oh no spending ten million now will keep us from resigning guys" is a blanket statement that doesn't hold any weight because it is conjecture.

As for the proactive thing. I know you think you are making a joke, but you do know premptive and proactive have two different meanings? You remind me of Biff Tannen who thinks he is being witty when he tells someone to make like a tree and get outa here. Ballard is only proactive once a glaring hole is exposed on the field. The past couple years we have entered the season with obvious holes. OL year one, year two pass rush and WR, year three looks like interior d-line to me as it stands. I would like to see him address these issues more before it is exposed on the field, hence he is reactive to roster issues after the fact, then he becomes proactive. That is not the same as preemptive. This comes into the reading comprehension, I really think you have a hard time figuring out what people are trying to say on here. I have to explain things to an obsurd detail. I noticed it the last time we got into it and you doing it with other posters as well.

King of the hill?

https://media.giphy.com/media/4XOfvSkkxchHy/giphy.gif

I was 6'3" 295# when I played, personally loved muddy slick fields due to better traction. Science or not but as a slow fat guy I felt I had an advantage. Just my $0.02 … :cool:

If you couldn't catch a RB on a dry field you weren't going to catch him on a muddy one. It's easier for a man who weighs less to change directions than a larger man because the force of inertia is greater with more mass. So it's harder to make quick turns for a semi truck, easier for a civic.

The only way I ever had an advantage on a muddy field was putting in the longest cleats that was in the equipment box.

Howie Long got caught in a winter game on a frozen field wearing baseball spikes. A for effort, A for being a douchebag.

Here is my take on it. You are obsolutely right that the league is curving towards a spread system with fast mobile QB's (fast mobile QB's are really nothing new). The speed we have gained is definitely necessary and will be an asset next year.

The problem is we have two power run teams in our division and several more in the conference. We will have to go through these teams to get to the superbowl. To defend the run in this system it is all about maintaining your lane and distance (gap integrity or whatever you want to call it) while moving up the field. Dungy preached it relentlessly, we rarely practiced it. Those defenses often got pushed around a lot. MJD is still running on them.

Maintaining your lane is easier in the 1st quarter than it is in the 4th, in the cold, on the road, in the playoffs. Colts fans have seen this before. The pats went run heavy at the end of last year to counter all these light fast defenses and to protect Brady's aging arm. They use a fullback. The question is will we be able to hold up against the pats, in NE, on their turf, in the playoffs when they will want to run all day long?

I don't know if they can, so I would like to strengthen the dline with some size. I hoped they would have addressed it in the draft, but it didn't happen. I don't think we need a Siragusa, and I don't think he would fit. But a big DT (in relation to our own guys) that fits our style of D did just become a FA, hence this thread.

to paraphrase Bob Kravitz, "something finally stop the Jags running game, the endzone".

I understand all that. 8 games a year is on the turf at LOS. Jacksonville is usually nice weather and Tenn gets cold, but not sloppy and Texans play inside. So that'a 11 games out of 16 in decent weather. If you go to the schedule, the Colts will play LA in Sept, KC in Oct, Tampa Bay and New Orleans away late in the year, but I would not expect snow in the Super dome.

You design your team for what you usually see and do. The Colts are the most northern team in the AFC south. The weather is better when we are on the road.

KC in Oct is a crap shoot. So is the Pittsburg game. Remember when Pittsburg played a game on MNF after the state football playoffs in their stadium. They resodded the field and it had old testimate rain and on one punt the ball stuck in the ground. Anyone on the field had feet the size of manhole covers.

You build your team for home. You adjust your play calls for away. Not for nothing, if the Colts are away in shitty weather and they don't run behind Nelson and Costanzo all night the coaching staff should be fired.

I guess I was a "Mudder" cause those little SOB's ran like they were slipping in shit. I even got A's in physics … :rolleyes:

What I was saying is that a speed advantage throughout the year is rendered useless most often in games that are most important such as late in the season or in the playoffs. That's why we're always hoping and praying to get the one seed to avoid a road game in Pittsburgh, New England or some other sloppy track.

Playing away is playing away, doesn't matter the field

We don’t run a dungy defense. How would you know what player fits this defense when you don’t have a clue as to what we do?