Originally Posted by FatDT (Post 62261)

This is recency bias. Barkley will probably be great. But Edge was one of the best RBs of all time pre-ACL injury. I don't care about return ability. No NFL team is going to have Barkley return anything. Edge was a complete back. Vision, agility, wiggle, power, toughness, blocking, receiving, speed, instant quickness. If anything I'd say pre-ACL Edge is Barkley's ceiling. I see them as relatively similar in that Barkley is pretty complete. But I don't see him being as powerful a runner despite being heavier.

Originally Posted by VeveJones007 (Post 62312)

The comp for Barkley is Faulk. We all know that both Edge and Faulk were great, HOF caliber players, but they were very different styles of RBs.

Originally Posted by FatDT (Post 62318)

I'll agree that Barkley is a closer comparison to Faulk or Tomlinson. Edge had more power to his game. But whenever he needed to do something different, it was there. It's still painful to think what could have been if he hadn't gotten hurt.

Originally Posted by HoosierinFL (Post 62311)

Signing free agents works in New England because there's already an established culture there. So when 2-3 new FAs come in each year, they assimilate into that culture.
But there's no established culture here. The only culture of winning football we had disappeared in 2011. Almost all of the veterans were released, as well as the coaches and most of the front office, and lots of FAs came in with a mercenary attitude and there was nothing here for them to assimilate into. It became a me-first culture full of mercenaries and losers.
Ballard knows he needs to home grow his own guys and create the right culture before bringing in too many FAs.

Originally Posted by FatDT (Post 62318)

I'll agree that Barkley is a closer comparison to Faulk or Tomlinson. Edge had more power to his game. But whenever he needed to do something different, it was there. It's still painful to think what could have been if he hadn't gotten hurt.

Originally Posted by rm1369 (Post 62288)

I’m fine with Ballard’s first draft and I’m hopeful about his talent evaluation. And if I had to guess, I’d say that he will ultimately improve the roster significantly and the Colts will play meaningful football games again with him as GM. They will be a relatively consistent playoff team. Of course that probably says more about my belief in Luck than Ballard, but it’s safe to say I think he will be a significant upgrade over Grigson. Not really high praise, I know.

My concern is that while you may see his approach as unique I simply see it as ultra conservative. It brings to mind Polian and Ted Thompson. Successfull GMs sure (especially Polish), but I belief both have cost their teams titles by their conservative approaches. Manning and Rodgers should have more than a title each (with Colts for Manning). Their complete reliance on the draft and their “do what we do” attitude helps maintain consistency, but doesn’t push their teams over the top quite enough. I’d rather have a few more valleys to have a few more higher peaks.

So when I see Ballard cut a 26 yr old performing Hankins because the players in this D need to be drafted into it �� I hear “do what we do” and think back to all those vanilla and ultimately underperforming Colts teams coming up short - year after year. The best teams scheme around their talent - not the other way around. “Do what we do” and ignoring free agency brought this team one title forarguably the GOAT, but without a doubt one of the top 3 QBs to ever play. That doesn’t make me optimistic for Ballard since early Polian was largely money in the draft. Ballard better but a damn drafting genius.

Now, I said there wasn’t a track record for me to have faith in Ballard he also doesn’t have a track record for me to KNOW that this is the same path Ballard will take. So I try to remain caustiously optimistic. But I tend to believ what’s someone says until I have a reason not to and all of Ballard’s words, quite a few of his actions, and the Colts available cap space and mediocre signings say he is absolutely on the the Polian and Thompson level for conservative team building.

Originally Posted by Racehorse (Post 62374)

Itis highly likely that Ballard is like Polian, except for the stubbornness to add free agents once a team is assembled. I seem to recall Ballard making a statement that high-priced free agents were added when a team needs to get over the hump in order to win it all and not when building a roster that can compete.