Yeah, if ultimately Grigson even hits on some of his picks we might have another Super Bowl. Hilton is the best pick he ever made. But he only went heavy FA bc he sucked at drafting.

Ballard has sold his plan well, wasn’t hard after the success Polian had. I like the guy. Seems like a good GM to play for. Kinda sucks he only had his most important piece for one year. Things have gotten infinitely more hard for him now. We have a patient fanbase, but not that patient.

It would have been stupid to go back. I would draft him. Every QB in this draft has some sort of question marks. He is very accurate, mobile, and doesn’t panic under pressure.

Why do you say that? I think he is very accurate and throws a beautiful deep ball.

Kind of, I guess? While it will undoubtedly take time to get the kind of system that Ballard envisions in place, if you look back at our discussions I think what I took issue with was the suggestion or implication that we were doomed to also-ran status during that 3-4 year period. I don’t think that was the case at all. Upon Luck’s return the year after Ballard arrived, and after Pagano’s exit (who now admits he was in over his head), we were immediately a contender, it was just a question of how far we could get.

I think we're talking about different types of risk. Did those signings risk popping our salary cap? Absolutely not. Was Ballard sticking his neck out by signing a couple of guys to contracts that many thought were excessive? Yes he was, regardless of the length. He was signing two players who had issues (Funchess – unproductivity, Houston – age, injury). In that sense, they were both undeniably risky signings.

Well, earlier draft picks are better, I cannot deny that. But I’m just saying that in recent years, it seems like teams in the mid-to-late part of the first round are increasingly able to find a franchise-type QB. I don’t know if colleges are preparing their QBs better for the NFL, if the offenses/rule changes have created more opportunities, or if the NFL has simply been slow to accept the idea of a successful QB who does not fit the traditional pocket-passer mold. It used to feel like a franchise QB drafted outside the top 2 or 3 picks was a rarity. Now it seems much more common. Strictly a subjective off-the-cuff observation, I admittedly have no data to back it up.

Maybe so, but you have to plan and make assumptions about your players on any team, even one that jumps headfirst into the free agent fray. For example, it would have been ridiculous to use a high round pick on a QB when Luck was playing full time given the type of system we were trying to install. Same with Castonzo - knowing that we have him allows us to focus our attention elsewhere, where more immediate needs are present. Maybe we would have that luxury when Ballard’s plan was fully in place, but burning high draft picks on positions where we are already set does not seem the best use of our resources under the circumstances, and only delays implementation of the overall plan.

I’m not one to defend Grigson, but I’m not sure that’s a fair assessment. Ballard’s first offseason he did pretty much nothing to address the Oline. That’s coming after the known problems from the Grigson era. As I’ve said, Grigson’s main issue was he was a shitty talent evaluator. But he invested resources into the oline. In 5 drafts Grigson made 18 pics in rounds 1-4 (the range where most guys contribute). 5 of them were used on oline - (1) 1st - Kelly, (1) 2nd - Mewhort, (2) 3rd - Thornton and Clark, and (1) 4th - Holmes. In 3 drafts Ballard has made 17 pics in rounds 1-4. He’s invested 3 pics on the oline - (1) 1st - Nelson, (1) 2nd - Smith, and (1) 4th - Banner. I’m not sure what the “right way” is other than hitting on draft pics.

And before someone takes this as me somehow criticizing Ballard, I’m not. I’m simply trying to dispel this idea that Grigson’s method was somehow wrong. It wasn’t, he simply couldn’t do the most important aspect of the job - evaluate talent.

I like that Ballard values certain skills and physiques for at certain positions. He doesnt use group think, he trusts his judgement. People thought he was nuts where he drafted Leonard and Nelson. He overcame that jackass from NE backing out of the HC position and hired Reich.

He’s got a plan an he doesnt make excuses.

What you are saying is true in general. However I’m not knocking Ballard for not having a replacement for Luck. My criticism has always been of essentially willingly wasting a year(s) with a franchise QB. It is very likely that from 2015 to 2022 that 2018 team will have been the closest to a title team the Colts have. So the best opportunity in a 7-8 year span was pissed away for a future that MAY come 4 years later. That is assuming he drafts a competent QB this year. In a league where the average career is 3.3 years that seems extremely wasteful to me. I get that he didn’t expect Luck to retire, but that to me is irrelevant. Luck admitted he considered retirement due to the shoulder and any player is one play away from retirement anyway. You’d think Colts fans of all people would understand how fragile it all is.

On AC it’s a little different. Again, I’m not criticizing Ballard for not having a great LT ready to step in. However, I won’t pretend like this has never been discussed or brought up. Going into the 2018 draft many said OT was the biggest OL need. Someone to play RT and then eventually slide in to the LT spot. I quoted one of my posts from the debates about Nelson where I said pretty much exactly that. So I’m not going to knock Ballard for it, but I’m also not going to pretend it was something he had no way or no reason to consider. If people on here are saying it then Ballard definitely sees it as well. He chose to draft admittedly a hell of an OG at 6 instead. But it was a decision he knowingly made.

I don't know what group think you are referring to. He trusts his staff and leans on their evaluations.

This is kinda a false narrative that keeps popping up to make the picks seems all the more groundbreaking.

Nelson was the highest graded olineman coming out in years and was thought he would be an instant all-pro and one of the best guards in the league. People argued that the guard is not as important as other positions. You can still make that argument. But with the rise of dominant interior rushers, it has placed more importance on the interior of the oline to protect your QB. Also, if you are going to spend a top ten pick on a guard Nelson is the guy, he was the safest pick in years. Also, the Redskins took Sherff 5th overall and it turned out very well for them. There was precedent for the decision. Nelson fit a need and was really an easy pick. The decision was whether the pick should be used on another position.

As for Leonard, he was routinely the 4th or 5th rated linebacker on many draft rankings. He just suffered from playing at a small school. But his metrics measured just as well as the other top LB's. Also, Leonard's style is a very good scheme fot for this system. If kept clean he is allowed to run around and influence plays and use his long arms and speed. I think his performance surprised some people, but it wasn't like he was some guy suppossed to be drafted in the 7th round. He was recruited by Clemson, one of the most athletic and talented college teams in the country.

On the flip side, in the last few years the rams have gone all in to win now. Resigning their own guys to big contracts (goff, gurly, donald) and being very aggressive in signing FAs and trades (fowler, weddle, mathews, suh, ramsey, etc).

They got embarrassed in the SB and didnt make the playoffs this year. They dont have a ton of cap space and need to resign guys, specifically fowler and ramsey who will bring a big contracts.

Not necessarily the best way to go about it either.

On the bold part, I think you are using a stat that isn't relevant. Starters average closer to ten years in the league, whereas the bottom of the roster is what lowers that average. Make any argument you want about urgency, but make sure the data you offer is pertinent.

He throws a great deep ball, but he's not the most accurate on some of the short to intermediate throws, and struggles against pressure. He's not going to have those 4+ second pockets he was in constantly at Alabama in the NFL.

Does anybody have any interest in free agent qbs? Can Reich do some magic with like Winston?

Ok, that’s fair. Let’s look at it a different way. You mentioned starters so let’s look at depth charts. There are 2 players listed as starters for the Colts in 2015 that were listed as starters in 2019 (only considering the 22 players on O and D, no special teams). Those two are Castonzo and TY. Ok, well the Colts struggled during that period and had a GM change over so roster turnover is to be expected. So let’s look at 3 of the consistent winners over that time period. NE has 3, Steelers have 4, and Greenbay has 4. 3 of the most consistent winning teams in the league have only maintained 17% of their starters from 2015 to 2019. I can look at others if you want or shorten the time period (I used that span because it matches the 2018 to 2022 span I mentioned previously), but however you cut it the only consistent thing in the NFL is change.

Main two guys I’d have an interest in are Carr and Newton. I doubt either is available in free agency though and I wouldn’t be willing to trade much for either of them. I think both are a step up from Brissett, but I’m also fairly pessimistic about the long term success of a team without a franchise QB. Giving up much of anything for a QB below that level seems counter productive to me. I guess an argument could be made that to develop the WR group you at least need a QB that can get the ball out though so it would depend on the asking price.

Although their systems are completely different, I trust Arians assessment of a QB. If he’s willing to walk away from Winston then I’d pass.

no.

I think that’s hyperbole. I don’t think he wasted a year by implementing his plan – we won a playoff game in a season where few thought we’d make the playoffs at all. If Ballard had spent more of that salary cap space in 2018, would we have had a better chance to beat the Chiefs? Maybe, but we’ll never know.

One of the problems with your argument is that it is premised upon the absolute certainty that this team would have been better and gone further in the playoffs if Ballard had implemented your plan and signed premium free agents instead of focusing on youth. While it’s certainly possible I don’t think that’s a certainty. Free agency is a bit of a minefield and we might well have ended up with a few bombs. Ryan Jenson and Andrew Norwell – two individuals we actively pursued with most people’s blessing here – haven’t nearly lived up to their lofty billing. In fact, here’s a pre-season article I found from March 2018 outlining the Indy Star’s view on the free agents we should pursue that offseason:

https://www.indystar.com/story/sport...nse/402692002/

Who of these guys do you think would have made a difference in retrospect? Allen Robinson would have been nice, no doubt, but I don’t think the rest of these guys would have been an improvement over our current (younger and cheaper) roster members. And let’s not forget the “butterfly effect” of signing some additional veteran free agents – would we have Quinton Nelson or Darius Leonard? Hines? What about DION F’ING CAIN? (oh, wait…)

All thing considered, and in retrospect, I’m happy with the path Ballard chose, even through we lost in the divisional round last season. I think we did about as well as any of us could have reasonably expected at the beginning of the 2018 offseason – with our without more free agent signings.

Excellent example Rcubed. Thank you.

I'd prefer Bridgewater, and I think the Colts could go far with him at QB.

Fair enough, although:

1) I wouldn’t consider Goff at the franchise QB level. To me he doesn’t carry the team the way those guys do. He’s a decent QB on a good team. If a new GM took over KC and decided he was rebuilding the roster over 3-4 years it would be comparable. Seattle turned over their roster with Wilson. They didn’t wait to replace nearly every need in the draft. That’s more comparable.

2) Any discussion of spending money or bringing in vets and guys on here go to the most extreme examples they can find as the only comparisons. I’ve not once went off because we didn’t trade for the newest “star” that’s being moved or sign the highest price free agent. But if you think Ballard adequately addressed the WR position before the 2018 season then we simply won’t agree on anything. And I’ll point out - guess what one of the top needs going into 2020 is? Yeah, WR. It’s hard af to address every need through the draft or with a bargain.

3) After the 2018 season Ballard essentially said the team came together quicker than he thought. If he realized they would have been that good do you think he’d have done more? I do. And after this season he admitted erring by getting rid of some of the vets. That sounds pretty similar to what I’ve complained about - forcing youth for the long term gain over what vets bring this year.

Chaka, I get it - I’m not going to sway you at all. I can’t prove that anything would have been better and I can’t prove that anything good that has happened would have still happened. It’s a game that I can’t win. Pretty much the exact concern I had (the unpredictable nature of the NFL) rocked the franchise (Lucks retirement) and they may be facing a similar situation (AC retiring) this offseason. I complained about a 3-4 year rebuild and we are now entering year 4 and the dynasty is no where in sight. I complained about a 1 yr deal for Funchess because I didn’t believe it solved anything at WR. He played one game, WR is still a mess and whether or not he comes back next year is up in the air. It doesn’t matter what is said or what happens your opinion isn’t going to change. And considering where the team is mine sure as hell isn’t either. So the discussion is pointless.

o


ESPN's "NFL Nation" has a blurb for all 32 teams ........ Mike Wells specifically has one for the Colts.


Indianapolis Colts


Revamp its group of pass-catchers. T.Y. Hilton, the team's No. 1 option, will be 31 next season. Devin Funchess, who didn't even play a full game this season, is a free agent. Parris Campbell, a 2019 second-round pick, played only seven games because of injuries. Tight end Eric Ebron is a free agent, and the Colts have very little interest in re-signing him. You get the picture. Zach Pascal was leading receiver (607 yards) for the Colts, who finished 30th in the NFL with just 196 passing yards per game. There's a chance that quarterback Jacoby Brissett remains the starter, despite his struggles late in the season, but Indianapolis needs to help him out ........ GM Chris Ballard has admitted as much.

--- Mike Wells



Biggest 2020 Off-Season Needs for all 32 NFL Teams

(By NFL Nation)

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...l-32-nfl-teams

o

Nah. It's gonna be JB again. Batten down the hatches...

ooohhh Boy. Trevor Lawrence 2021? Says about every bad team's fanbase next season.

I don't care at all for Winston. He's a punk ass, interception throwing machine. Doubt even Reich can fix him.

The Rams are an extreme example since they had to make a splash for their debut in LA. Do you think they could sell Ballard's plan as they arrive in LA?

A closer parallel is the Bears. They went for it with the Mack trade, their QB situation is similarly screwed up, Mack and the defense led them to a nice season last year, but a sub-par season this year, mainly due to the lack of play-makers on offense. If I was a fan of the Bears, I wouldn't regret the team going for it with the Mack trade. Sure, he's making a lot of money, but he's exactly the kind of rare game-changer who the Colts are forever chasing through the draft, as opposed to parting with a few draft picks and having that issue solved for the next 4-5 years AND using the remaining picks to find complementary players who would be that much better since they step in day one next to a difference-maker.

It's easy to say, "well the Bears didn't win a Super Bowl, so such a risky move wasn't wise and now they're up against the cap". You gotta spend the money on someone, might as well be an impactful someone.

I’m sorry to hear that. My opinion can and has changed in response to opinions expressed on this board, but I agree not in this instance. I understand your position, and it’s perfectly fair and reasonable, but I just happen to disagree. Your argument would be more convincing to me if the Colts were mired in a series of losing seasons, with little evidence of progress and we were being asked to simply trust Ballard on his word and vision. Then I would understand all the teeth-gnashing and frustration.

But that’s not what has happened here. There are plenty of signs that Ballard’s plan was working. Yes, the plan has been seriously damaged by major unexpected – and in some ways unheard of – events such as the Luck retirement. And yes, I agree things are always changing and unpredictable in the NFL. But the Luck retirement goes a little beyond that and its kind of uncharted territory – a marquee player in the prime of his career at the sport’s most important position who is abruptly eliminated from the equation permanently. That’s not within the realm of normal NFL “not for long” events. Sorry, it just isn’t. Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I really can’t think of a comparable event off the top of my head – maybe the Theismann injury, but he was pretty late into his career at the time if I’m not mistaken.

Anyway, ultimately our debates always seem to come back a core philosophical difference regarding the proper time horizon the Colts should focus upon. It seems to me you are more of a “win now” guy because you believe competitive windows are usually brief, and I am more in the camp of believing that it's realistic to build a team that can maintain a high level of sustained success that spans several years. That’s our primary disagreement at the end of the day.

The Bears aren't really comparable in my view. To begin with, we didn't have a screwed up QB situation in the time frame we've been discussing. We're talking about the window that opened in 2018 when Luck returned. The Bears don't have a Luck.

Second, we aren't talking about the Colts failing to trade for a specific player at the cost of future draft picks - that's an entirely different analysis than the decision to sign free agents. Usually, guys like Mack aren't available through free agency.

Third, your timeline is off with the Rams. They moved to L.A. in 2016, and ended up 4-12 after picking Goff with the first pick in the draft. they didn't really start their free agent splurge until around 2018 (Suh), when they made a Super Bowl run. So I think they are a much better comparable to the Colts and the philosophy that some here have advocated.

For the record, I don't think trading future draft picks for a star player in his prime is necessarily a bad idea. Mack has been a good addition, no question. My problem with those type of trades is that often people look only at the quality of the star player and ignore the business implications - usually you have to sign the player to a market-value contract as part of such a trade, so there are implications for the team beyond the on the field performance. That said, unique players are often worth more than market rates, so I'm not against that idea. I haven't seen any indication that Ballard thinks this way yet though.

similarly you dont seem to take into account that ballard has been in on many FAs that eventually went to another team. ballard has a value for a player and once the price goes beyond that he is out. that shows diligence in sticking to his process. I guess you could say that maybe his threshold is too low, but its not like he does nothing, and in the mean time he hasn't strapped the team with bad players with bad contracts.

I want to make sure it’s clear that I like Ballard and I didn’t start this conversation complaining about him. It’s started because of a comment I made to dam about not seeing Ballard signing Bridgewater for big money or spending enough draft capital to move up significantly in the draft. Just doesn’t match his previous comments or actions, but either way I didn’t jump in bashing Ballard and really haven’t intended to.

You are correct that our debates always come down to philosophical differences, however I want to point out that I’m not a always a “win now” guy. I’m only that when there is a true franchise QB in place. To me a true franchise QB just means that much. He puts you around .500 with a shitty roster. He gives you a chance to win any game you play. And he’s one hot streak from putting you in the SB or at least the AFCCG with minimal help. That is the importance of the position. IMO Polian gave away SBs trying to maintain greatness. Ted Thompson did similar in GB. Both teams would have done better to have had higher peaks and lower valleys because the QB would always allow for a very quick bounce back. That allows you to take more risks IMO.

Without that guy in place then I’m not a “win now” guy. I’m a find a “true franchise QB” guy. And I’m down for patience. In a previous thread I said Ballard didn’t absolutely have to fix the QB situation this offseason, because it’s more important to get it right than it is to get someone quickly. However that also means that I don’t think the Colts will be true contenders for a few more years. That’s why I look at that 2018 season as a major missed opportunity - it’s going to be a few years before they have that opportunity again with a franchise QB (not just make the playoffs with an ok QB). You’ve mentioned several times that no one expected anything from that 2018 team, but that’s not accurate. They were in a great position with a returning franchise QB, very high draft pick that would net a difference make or two or three, tons of cap space, and ditching Pagano. I wasn’t pessimistic until I saw the direction Ballard was going.

So the rumor-mill/what-if generators have been spewing a lot of tom brady to the colts. I highly doubt that would come to fruition, but I was wondering what if it actually did. How would that be accepted in colts land? If tom-terrific signed a two year deal and we draft someone to sit behind him. Would there be full riots in the streets? Would fans eventually calm and then root unconditionally?

I dont think I would want him, even taking the history out of the equation.

I understand Ballard has tried on some players he missed on. That happens with all GMs. Yeah I think Ballard was more fiscally conservative than he should have been when Luck was (or was supposed to be) the QB. However, that’s not the only part of the argument. It was also the forced youth movement. However you want to cut it Ballard was playing more for the future than I think he should have been. If you were happy with what he did in 2018 and was doing for 2019 (before Luck retired) then great. I wasn’t. Now that the team has no QB and possibly no LT, and huge question marks on the pass rush I’m in agreement with everyone - there is no rush. But when Luck was on the roster I simply believed there should have been a sense of urgency that most here don’t seem to agree with.

However, Ballard has entered each season with glaring holes that end up hurting the team. Reserving spots for developmental players because your draft method values top athletes that need coaching and skill technique. Now we missed a window because he doesn't have any sense of urgency. Dynasties are very rare and just assuming you are going to build one with your prescribed method is a little arrogant. How many dynasties has everyone seen just in their lifetime?

Whatever your prescribed method for acquiring talent (FA, draft, trades), you have to hit on it. He helps mitigate the failure rate of the draft by using a volume approach, which is smart, but he also picks a lot of projects. Turay, Banagu, Ya-Sin, Cambell, Lewis, Fountain, Cain, etc. He could get resonable FA's to fill those spots, but he doesn't want FA guys taking snaps from his picks which could hurt their potential. We missed out on several rookie WR's that could have contributed NOW, not in three years of coaching; Brown, Metcalf, Samuel, McLaurin. You can't tell me they didn't have those guys scouted. They chose Ya-sin because he was the only guy that was able to slow down Samuel and McLaurin at the senior bowl. They were torching everyone! Still we drafted a guy that had great physical traits and worked out of the slot, but also had just a few catches past 10 yards the entire year. Last year was a strong DT draft and he ignores the position, passes on a DE due to health concerns who ended up having a great year. Now we need a DT more than ever in a weaker DT draft, but QB, LT, and DE are still sitting there.

Ballard doesn't have to sign every huge FA out there, but he shuts down too early for his bargain shopping method. That is the nature of FA, you over spend some. Does he think his own upcoming FA's will be bargain signings as well? Some of his best talent acquisitions have been FA signings.

Also dynasties start at the QB position. Unless you have that, you aren't building anything.

And yes the Luck retirement was out of the blue, but his injury history was not. His career was in danger from an lengthy injury history which was kinda ignored. Plenty of careers have been cut short by injury. Maybe we thought he would be fine bc Peyton was an iron man. But we spent the lowest amount of capital on the QB postion of just about any team in the league since we drafted Luck. Other teams were investing in the position, we acquired Brisset and that was it. Bad foresight. Now the writing is on the wall with Hilton, will they pay attention?

This is really the crux of it all. With a franchise QB you are never really far away. Without one you are simply treading water (at best) long term.

Right, you might be able to build a team despite not having one, be competitive, and win one SB. But you need HOF players at a lot of other positions, and those teams usually just win once. Want a dynasty with multiple SB's? QB is your building block you base that off of. Doesn't mean you have to be a passing dominant team, you can build a team in different ways, but you need that piece.

I will disagree with that. I think accuracy and decision making are his best traits, plus he is familiar with RPO. I really like him for us.

I agree with this. I admittedly don’t watch a ton of college ball, but everything I’ve seen on Tua makes me think he’s a great fit. As you noted accuracy and decision making are routinely two of the strengths I’ve seen from him. And, IMO, those are the two most important qualities for a QB. Know where the ball should go and being able to throw accurately enough to get it there. Other qualities are important as well but without those two I don’t think you can be elite. It’s going to be interesting to see where Ballard goes with this. The supposed infatuation with Love, his involvement in selecting Mahomes, and his known emphasis on measurable for other positions leaves me a little concerned about what he’s looking for in a QB.

We will likely have to move into the top ten to get him. We have the draft capital to do it. Will Ballard do it though?

In 2018 Tua was rated the most accurate passer in the power 5 conferences. In 2019 I think he was rated 4th. I believe Burrow has the bets season ever and Fromm fwas over him. Still very very good and his deep ball was rated the best I believe.

His turnover passing rate is about 3.1% which is inline with the top ten QB picks over the last couple years.

I think he is fine in the pocket and has faced the best pass rushers in the country in the SEC. They usually have the best defensive linemen.

The injury is the only concern of mine. If drafted he could sit and heal behind Brisset. I think it is a no-brianer.

I think they’d likely have to go to 4 to get him. 5, 6, and 7 are likely QB spots. If his hip injury doesn’t throw up major flags then I don’t see him making it past those 3, and really I doubt Miami passes at 5. Giants are also a team that a trade back seems to make sense for. Trade value chart shows the 4th pic being worth 1800 points and the the 13th and 34th combine for 1710. So 13th, 34th + ? I’d guess they’d at least want 44 too. Possibly more. Knowing how much Ballard values picks I just don’t see him pulling the trigger on that.

I agree, 4 is the spot you target. And hope the Dolphins don't catch wind because they have been interested in Tua for a long time.

Well a franchise QB is worth that. If you hit, in a couple years you don't care. If he misses, he likely will be out of the job by that point. But a couple more picks don't usually add up to the value of a franchise QB. Sure they could be all pro's like Leonard, or they could be Quincy Wilson's. Need thazt building block though, it influences so many things. FA interest, fanbase interest, marketing and advertising, game and schedule exposure. I think it is completely necessary for a small market team. So yeah, to me, one or two less picks is worth it.

Ballard has said he likes the draft to come to him. However, if you need a QB and you are picking in the middle of the draft, you have to be aggressive. I think he knows this though. Question is does he like Tua enough to do it. Rumor was they liked Jeffrey Simmons last draft, I wish they had moved up for him. He fell because of injury, but not as far as some had hoped.

gfy for posting that.