Colts sign Matt Slauson

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

This is year two and it seems pretty obvious Ballard isn’t attempting to compete next year. By your own description of his process that is plainly clear. So is next year the magical year where he will be willing to use all of the cap flexibility he’s maintained at the expense of building a team and protecting his QB? I guess we’ll see but I’m pretty damn skeptical. I’m guessing we hear the same mantra next off season since we are going to still have tons of holes to fill and we won’t really know what we have in this years crop of rookies yet. Biggest jump in performance is typically between year one and two right? So we have to be patient and see what these guys become before we start throwing around cap space and actually signing guys.

I don’t understand why everyone that defends Ballard’s plan is so against admitting it’s a 3-4 year plan before they are truly competitive. I mean we are in year 2 and the roster is full of holes that will be manned next year by rookies. How can that not be a 3-4 year plan? If you agree with the method why can’t you admit what it is?

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.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by FatDT

The idea that it's too early to criticize the off-season, specifically free agency, makes no sense to me. Free agency moves fast. So fast the NFL created the assinine "legal tampering" period. And based on interviews I've read, teams and players still start talking earlier than they're supposed to.

Teams don't tamper with JAGs. They push for every advantage they can get to sign the best players in FA. What is it we are supposed to wait for before we develop an opinion on the moves the Colts do and don't make? There aren't more moves to be made. We whiffed on all the sure fire upgrades for the OL. All we could get was a 32 year old who apparently sucked at guard the last time he played there. At $3M for a single season, it doesn't appear he's expected to start. Maybe he'll get the chance to compete there, but is it likely? I've said it before, but it's clear Ballard knows the OL needs to be better. He wouldn't have tried to get Norwell, Jensen, or Pugh otherwise. Slauson isn't a solution to that problem. He's a "hopefully, but probably not".

Also don't see any reason to wait on anything related to releasing Hankins. There's nothing else to be decided there. Either you buy the idea that he can't play in our new defense or you don't.

Certainly individual player moves are fair game for criticism - as to such moves, however, I think you have to evaluate the moves in the larger context of the salary cap rules and the stated goals of the organization. So many of the criticisms center upon the loss of a good player (Hankins/Melvin) without any discussion of the cost that keeping the player would entail - both in dollar amount and length of contract. For a GM, these are paramount considerations - I'm sure Ballard would agree that both of those players are valuable, but he's determined that they aren't worth what it would cost the Colts (given their schemes) to keep them. He's said as much in his interviews.

As to the larger question of criticizing the entire offseason, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. To label the offseason a failure at this point is way too premature. There is much more that will be done before the season begins.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by FatDT

There must be more to it. In what world is Hankins less athletic or talented than Woods or Stewart? Either it was money (which makes little sense) or Hankins might've wanted out (he'll probably get a bump in pay and can sign w/a better team). Occam's Razor says it's probably option B, and that the cover story about scheme fit makes the Colts look better than "Our talented DT doesn't want to play here".

No way to know. But that is more believable to me than the idea that accomplished football people could say Hankins is a bad fit but Woods and Stewart aren't.

I disagree - I suspect it's exactly what Ballard says, he doesn't believe Hankins fits the scheme. Call me naïve, but Ballard so far seems to be a pretty straight shooter. I also have heard nothing to suggest Hankins was unhappy or wanted out - and even if the Colts wanted to keep such a thing quiet, I don't think they could and some indication of this would leak out.

To me, again, its all about cost and deploying your resources in the most effective and efficient way possible. This is what a GM is tasked with doing. Ballard thought the money to be paid to Hankins could be more effectively used in another way. What way? Not clear yet, but Irsay is not cheap and Ballard seems like a pretty smart guy, so I'll keep the faith.

[rcubed]

Originally Posted by FatDT

Ballard apparently said on Grady and Big Joe today that it was a scheme fit problem.

he also said he shopped hankins for a couple weeks before the release.

[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.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Certainly individual player moves are fair game for criticism - as to such moves, however, I think you have to evaluate the moves in the larger context of the salary cap rules and the stated goals of the organization. So many of the criticisms center upon the loss of a good player (Hankins/Melvin) without any discussion of the cost that keeping the player would entail - both in dollar amount and length of contract. For a GM, these are paramount considerations - I'm sure Ballard would agree that both of those players are valuable, but he's determined that they aren't worth what it would cost the Colts (given their schemes) to keep them. He's said as much in his interviews.

As to the larger question of criticizing the entire offseason, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. To label the offseason a failure at this point is way too premature. There is much more that will be done before the season begins.

I’m not sure how Ballard isn’t open to criticism for the Hankins situation. It was his signature signing last year. And it’s now his coaching staff that didn’t feel it could utilize an above average 26 yr old at the price Ballard signed him for. One year later. It was his decision on a talent starved roster to let go of a 26 yr old above average performer on a decent and relatively short term contract (2 more years). Instead of running with Hankins next year to see how the fit was they decided to save money. Money they have no intentions to spend. And money they in no way need. Is there some young guy behind Hankins who needs playing time the old washed up vet (at 26?)was stealing? I don’t see one.

Yes Ballard didn’t think he was worth it. That much is obvious. I don’t see how that in itself makes it logical. Especially if Ballard is really concerned with competing short term as you like to suggest.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by FatDT

There must be more to it. In what world is Hankins less athletic or talented than Woods or Stewart? Either it was money (which makes little sense) or Hankins might've wanted out (he'll probably get a bump in pay and can sign w/a better team). Occam's Razor says it's probably option B, and that the cover story about scheme fit makes the Colts look better than "Our talented DT doesn't want to play here".

No way to know. But that is more believable to me than the idea that accomplished football people could say Hankins is a bad fit but Woods and Stewart aren't.

Just read Ballard’s interview with Grady & Big Joe Show and he completely lays it out that athletically Hankins didn’t fit what they want. He referenced coveting speed and athleticism. And referenced the D in Indy under Dungy as an example. And as Chaka keeps saying Ballard referenced the money saying “he just didn’t fit the financial obligations.” He also said that most players are drafted and developed into the system.

Ballard and the coaches have one and only one vision for the team and whoever doesn’t fit is going to be discarded. That’s disheartening to me. The best orginaziations adapt to their talent. The Colts can’t afford to throw away talented young players. And Hankins was exactly that as even Ballard admits.

[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.