Colts sign Matt Slauson

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I disagree. Just because his transformation of the team won't be complete this year does not mean he doesn't intend to compete. As we all know from the Manning years, having a premier QB means that you're never far from competing. But I think he believes its in the long term interest of the team to implement his plan. You call it arrogance and say you don't care about whether it takes guts or not - I say it's strong leadership and admire his belief in himself. Quite frankly, in my view this is the type of person you want to run your franchise. You become the Redskins by taking a fan's-eye approach to free agency.

Yes a premier QB means you aren’t far from competing - which is exactly why throwing away several years while you “stack drafts” isn’t the right way to go. You are saying we aren’t far from contention because we have a franchise QB yet saying we have to build the longer slower way. Both aren’t true.

Who the hell is advocating the Washington approach? Is every free agent acquisition bad by definition? I’d say Jacksonville would disagree with that. And several other teams. There are more options than signing bargain basement cast offs and being Dan Snyder. What would signing 2 upper tier free agents (especially at least one on the OL) this year have stopped Ballard from doing? Nothing. He would still have all the draft picks he has and plenty of holes to fill. As you said - you aren’t far from contention with a franchise QB. So why is it stupid to add a couple quality players via free agency?

Grigson believed in himself - did you admire him for it too? Leadership is a hell of a lot more than being arrogant or inflexible. I admittedly have no idea if Ballard is a good leader or not. I’ve seen signs that I think point both ways on that. Time will tell. Hopefully Luck doesn’t get killed or frustrated while Ballard takes the slow, gusty approach.

[rcubed]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Grigson believed in himself .

grigson was a greasy douche.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Yes a premier QB means you aren’t far from competing - which is exactly why throwing away several years while you “stack drafts” isn’t the right way to go. You are saying we aren’t far from contention because we have a franchise QB yet saying we have to build the longer slower way. Both aren’t true.

Who the hell is advocating the Washington approach? Is every free agent acquisition bad by definition? I’d say Jacksonville would disagree with that. And several other teams. There are more options than signing bargain basement cast offs and being Dan Snyder. What would signing 2 upper tier free agents (especially at least one on the OL) this year have stopped Ballard from doing? Nothing. He would still have all the draft picks he has and plenty of holes to fill. As you said - you aren’t far from contention with a franchise QB. So why is it stupid to add a couple quality players via free agency?

Grigson believed in himself - did you admire him for it too? Leadership is a hell of a lot more than being arrogant or inflexible. I admittedly have no idea if Ballard is a good leader or not. I’ve seen signs that I think point both ways on that. Time will tell. Hopefully Luck doesn’t get killed or frustrated while Ballard takes the slow, gusty approach.

Why does not signing the top free agents mean that we're throwing away several years? Why can't the Colts compete while we change the underlying philosophy? I don't accept your premise. By your line of thinking, we should stay locked in to the last regime's approach since it may be too hard to change. If Luck is healthy, we'll be competitive and, if Ballard's approach proves to be right, we'll only get better in future years.

As far as Luck getting "killed", I don't accept this assumption either. Throwing money at the top free agents has never been proven to be a reliable way of succeeding - that's the Redskins way. These issues can be addressed in the draft too, or by any number of other ways. Ballard made a play for a few of the top OL free agents, but when the price rose beyond his comfort zone he backed off. He was disciplined and true to the approach he's outlined since he got to Indy - that's what I admire, particularly when public opinion is largely against him. Why is that arrogant? Do you want someone running the team who caves in to public opinion?

Lastly, as to Hankins, Ballard comments today were exactly consistent with what I thought - the cost was too high given the usefulness of Hankins to the Colts new defensive scheme. What more can he say? You might not like it, but that's why Hankins contract was structured the way it was - it gave the Colts an out if they didn't feel he was worth it after a year. We'll see what kind of contract Hankins gets, and whether the rest of the teams value Hankins as highly as you do. Indications are that they don't, since no team was willing to trade for him and to assume his Colts contract.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Why does not signing the top free agents mean that we're throwing away several years? Why can't the Colts compete while we change the underlying philosophy? I don't accept your premise. By your line of thinking, we should stay locked in to the last regime's approach since it may be too hard to change. If Luck is healthy, we'll be competitive and, if Ballard's approach proves to be right, we'll only get better in future years.

As far as Luck getting "killed", I don't accept this assumption either. Throwing money at the top free agents has never been proven to be a reliable way of succeeding - that's the Redskins way. These issues can be addressed in the draft too, or by any number of other ways. Ballard made a play for a few of the top OL free agents, but when the price rose beyond his comfort zone he backed off. He was disciplined and true to the approach he's outlined since he got to Indy - that's what I admire, particularly when public opinion is largely against him. Why is that arrogant? Do you want someone running the team who caves in to public opinion?

Lastly, as to Hankins, Ballard comments today were exactly consistent with what I thought - the cost was too high given the usefulness of Hankins to the Colts new defensive scheme. What more can he say? You might not like it, but that's why Hankins contract was structured the way it was - it gave the Colts an out if they didn't feel he was worth it after a year. We'll see what kind of contract Hankins gets, and whether the rest of the teams value Hankins as highly as you do. Indications are that they don't, since no team was willing to trade for him and to assume his Colts contract.

What is you definition of compete? This is the second year of only playing in the value free agent market. It’s already year two of a rebuild where the holes in the roster have only grown. The roster will be filled with rookies and short term players on bargain contracts. That is in no way a competitive roster IMO. That’s a rebuilding roster. Why you advocate it but refuse to acknowledge it is beyond me.

As far as scheme change I’m all for it - especially offensively. What I’m not ok with is ignoring free agency in filling holes in the roster with talent. Especially those in front of the most hit quarterback in the league - before he was hurt obviously. Holes that existed since the day Ballard was hired and have not been addressed in any meaningful way. Hopefully he spends draft capital to fix it and it goes better than his half assed attempts last year. But that will take draft capital that is also needed for nearly every position on a talent deficient D, at WR, and RB. You can’t fill all those holes in a draft, yet I’m to believe there were no players available in free agency worthy of bringing in as anything other than a stop gap. Even with a huge amount of cap space available.

And Hankins I completely understand Ballard decided he wasn’t worth it. But by that logic anything Ballard does was the right move since he did it because he thought it was right. That’s pretty hard to argue with. What Hankins next contract is is irrelevant for numerous reasons. What matters to me is that our GM signed him last year and changed course because our coaching staff is apparently so inflexible they couldn’t use him. In the modern NFL where teams use multiple fronts and all kinds of hybrid alignments they are so married to a scheme that they can’t find a way to use a talented 26 yr old. That’s what I have an issue with. If this was a Belichick decision you raise an eyebrow, look at his resume, shrug and move on. This is a first time GM and all first time coaches (in their positions) making the decision that Hankins is useless and scheme, not talent is supreme. That to me is a red flag.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

What is you definition of compete? This is the second year of only playing in the value free agent market. It’s already year two of a rebuild where the holes in the roster have only grown. The roster will be filled with rookies and short term players on bargain contracts. That is in no way a competitive roster IMO. That’s a rebuilding roster. Why you advocate it but refuse to acknowledge it is beyond me.

As far as scheme change I’m all for it - especially offensively. What I’m not ok with is ignoring free agency in filling holes in the roster with talent. Especially those in front of the most hit quarterback in the league - before he was hurt obviously. Holes that existed since the day Ballard was hired and have not been addressed in any meaningful way. Hopefully he spends draft capital to fix it and it goes better than his half assed attempts last year. But that will take draft capital that is also needed for nearly every position on a talent deficient D, at WR, and RB. You can’t fill all those holes in a draft, yet I’m to believe there were no players available in free agency worthy of bringing in as anything other than a stop gap. Even with a huge amount of cap space available.

And Hankins I completely understand Ballard decided he wasn’t worth it. But by that logic anything Ballard does was the right move since he did it because he thought it was right. That’s pretty hard to argue with. What Hankins next contract is is irrelevant for numerous reasons. What matters to me is that our GM signed him last year and changed course because our coaching staff is apparently so inflexible they couldn’t use him. In the modern NFL where teams use multiple fronts and all kinds of hybrid alignments they are so married to a scheme that they can’t find a way to use a talented 26 yr old. That’s what I have an issue with. If this was a Belichick decision you raise an eyebrow, look at his resume, shrug and move on. This is a first time GM and all first time coaches (in their positions) making the decision that Hankins is useless and scheme, not talent is supreme. That to me is a red flag.

By “compete”, I mean they could conceivably win any game, and they have a decent shot at the playoffs. We have the best QB in the division, so I think this will always be possible. Unlike you and your buddy Testcase, I don’t see Ballard’s strategy as any sort of plan to tank the next season or two. Could we increase our immediate chances marginally by signing several of the top free agents as you suggest? Yes, probably – but at what long term cost? Irsay/Ballard have spoken at length about building a sustainable, competitive team, and heavy reliance on free agency is just not suited to that sort of long term strategy.

I also disagree that they’re in the second year of a rebuild – Ballard inherited Pagano and his staff when he arrived here. Wholesale changes were not really possible, as it’s pretty clear there was some sort of agreement to let Pagano have a year unmolested by Grigson. So to be fair, this the first year Ballard’s had a clean slate to implement his plans. He’s doing so now.

Yes, the roster will have lots of young players and one-year contracts, but I think that’s exactly the goal. Pick players that fit your planned scheme, and incentivize them to perform at a maximum level. If they do so, everyone comes out ahead. If not, the Colts can move on without meaningful consequence. Lots of flexibility. Ballard loves those one year contracts, or at least contracts that give the team an out after a year – it’s obvious. And, sorry, but I personally like the approach. The downside is we probably won’t be able to sign many of the top free agents, as they’ll likely have other suitors who are willing to provide them with a much more secure future. However, based upon his comments, my guess is that Ballard will be a more generous with home-grown talent, and I have no doubt he’ll do whatever is necessary to keep the absolutely critical players (i.e. Luck) – and he’ll have the cap room to do it.

Lastly, again as to Hankins, I just don’t think Ballard is going to immediately compromise his vision to keep a guy whose getting paid a bundle and who he doesn’t believe is a good fit for his plan. As you pointed out, he’s a new GM, and if he screws this up I’m sure he wants to do it on his own terms, rather than because he compromised and caved to popular opinion.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

By “compete”, I mean they could conceivably win any game, and they have a decent shot at the playoffs. We have the best QB in the division, so I think this will always be possible. Unlike you and your buddy Testcase, I don’t see Ballard’s strategy as any sort of plan to tank the next season or two. Could we increase our immediate chances marginally by signing several of the top free agents as you suggest? Yes, probably – but at what long term cost? Irsay/Ballard have spoken at length about building a sustainable, competitive team, and heavy reliance on free agency is just not suited to that sort of long term strategy.

I also disagree that they’re in the second year of a rebuild – Ballard inherited Pagano and his staff when he arrived here. Wholesale changes were not really possible, as it’s pretty clear there was some sort of agreement to let Pagano have a year unmolested by Grigson. So to be fair, this the first year Ballard’s had a clean slate to implement his plans. He’s doing so now.

Yes, the roster will have lots of young players and one-year contracts, but I think that’s exactly the goal. Pick players that fit your planned scheme, and incentivize them to perform at a maximum level. If they do so, everyone comes out ahead. If not, the Colts can move on without meaningful consequence. Lots of flexibility. Ballard loves those one year contracts, or at least contracts that give the team an out after a year – it’s obvious. And, sorry, but I personally like the approach. The downside is we probably won’t be able to sign many of the top free agents, as they’ll likely have other suitors who are willing to provide them with a much more secure future. However, based upon his comments, my guess is that Ballard will be a more generous with home-grown talent, and I have no doubt he’ll do whatever is necessary to keep the absolutely critical players (i.e. Luck) – and he’ll have the cap room to do it.

Lastly, again as to Hankins, I just don’t think Ballard is going to immediately compromise his vision to keep a guy whose getting paid a bundle and who he doesn’t believe is a good fit for his plan. As you pointed out, he’s a new GM, and if he screws this up I’m sure he wants to do it on his own terms, rather than because he compromised and caved to popular opinion.

I guess we just have different ideas of what being competitive means. By your definition I absolutely agree - a healthy Luck gives them a chance to win any game.

So did Ballard waste his draft picks last year? He’s building strictly thru the draft and he drafted last year. How is this not year two? And if he didn’t know Pagano was doomed then he’s a shitty GM to begin with.

Team options after a year are great. For how much I dislike Hankins release, his contract was great. A roster full of one year contracts isn’t. It’s not a huge deal either way though. The number of them just shows this is a rebuilding and he isn’t looking for long term solutions in free agency. These guys are stop gaps.

We’ll revisit this in a year or two. I’d like be to be wrong and them be a real Super Bowl contender in another year. But I don’t see it. Not when they limit themselves to only one real avenue for improvement.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by rm1369

So did Ballard waste his draft picks last year?

No. Hooker, Wilson, Hairston and Mack are not wastes.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

No. Hooker, Wilson, Hairston and Mack are not wastes.

I agree. But that’s my point. Chaka doesn’t seem to want to count last year for Ballard, but he did exactly what he said he wanted to - build through the draft. If you agree with Ballard’s conservative approach that’s fine, but at least own it. This is year two.