The build

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

And by the way, what players is Ballard playing "clearly before they are ready"? It appears to me that the areas of greatest concern are those that are manned largely by players that have been in the league for several years: CB and WR. Most of the rookies have performed admirably, .........

You list CB as an obvious issue and I agree. However I don’t agree that it’s manned by vets. 67% of the snaps taken so far have been by 2nd year players. The two current snap leaders are 2nd year players. Desir is 3rd as a 5th year player. He meets the “been in the league several years” description you used. He accounts for 29% of the teams CB snaps. Milton accounts for the remaining 4%. He’s a 3 year vet. I’d say CB is a pretty young, inexperienced position and one that could have been upgraded.

You also mentioned WR. It’s another position that could have been upgraded, but it appears as if Ballard is holding it open for a draft pick. Grant on a 1 yr contract was the solution along with a bunch of young guys and the holdover Rogers.

LB is manned by a potential star in Leonard, an old journeyman in Goode, and several unspectacular young players. It was also an upgradeable position.

Originally Posted by Chaka

...a review of the stats reveals that our defense is actually far better statistically than it was with all of the old guard you argued so strongly that we should have kept (Hankins, etc.). Despite our 2-5 record, we've actually scored more points (189) than we've given up (185).

A review of the standings reveals the team is 2-5. The same record as last year. This is after getting its franchise QB back, improving its coaching, improving the O-line, improving the defense (apparently quite a bit), and improving the roster as a whole. My argument hasn’t been that Ballard hasn’t added talent, it’s that he was assembling a roster that wouldn’t win as much as it should. Too much forced youth, too much reliance on 1st and 2nd year players, too many holes left unfilled. Everything supposedly better, but same record - I’d say the facts back up my argument pretty well.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by rm1369

A review of the standings reveals the team is 2-5. The same record as last year. .

Look at the games last year:
Rams 46 Colts 9
Arizona 16 Colts 13
Colts 31The Freaking Browns Browns 28
Seattle 46 Colts 18
Colts 26 The Freaking Awful 49ers 23
Titans 36 Colts 22
Jax 27 Colts 0

You really think the team is not better this year?!?!?! We squeaked by the two worst teams in the league and got blown out by the others. This year, we have been competitive in every game. The corner has been turned, despite the record. They may not have learned how to win, but they sure have forgotten how to quit!

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

Look at the games last year:
Rams 46 Colts 9
Arizona 16 Colts 13
Colts 31The Freaking Browns Browns 28
Seattle 46 Colts 18
Colts 26 The Freaking Awful 49ers 23
Titans 36 Colts 22
Jax 27 Colts 0

You really think the team is not better this year?!?!?! We squeaked by the two worst teams in the league and got blown out by the others. This year, we have been competitive in every game. The corner has been turned, despite the record. They may not have learned how to win, but they sure have forgotten how to quit!

Do I think the team is better? Absolutely. I’d much prefer this team and roster. Just the addition of Luck makes this year significantly better. Same for the subtraction of Pagano. That’s not at all the point though. Chaka says the facts don’t support my position. My position has been that Ballard knowingly punted on this season by releasing producing vets, not making more additions in free agency, and relying on so many young players. If everything is so much better, why hasn’t the team won as much as you or Chaka expected? Could it maybe be my point is valid? The roster was set with only the future in mind and not with competing this year. If you are ok with that great! I disagree with that approach and don’t believe it was necessary to build a future team. That doesn’t at all mean I hate everything Ballard or any change or that I want last years team back.

Let me add that if Luck had played last year (as he is this year) the record would have been better. If they had this years coaching staff last year, the record would have been better. Those two changes alone should be better than a 2-5 record. So what the hell am I missing? You say you were hoping for 10 wins. The season is going largely as I expected considering the issues I saw. Maybe, just maybe I was right about the roster? Whether or not this is the right path for the long term success of the team is admittedly a different question. But the discussion Chaka and I are having is about whether or not I have a leg to stand on about the roster building. I say the facts support me much better than it does those of you expecting a better record. That does not mean I want last years team back or that I hate everything Ballard has done.

[FatDT]

Saying Ballard "punted" on the season makes it sound like tanking. I don't think he's tanking. I think he is prioritizing building culture and getting the young guys experience, and accepting whatever comes in terms of wins. That much seems pretty obvious.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by FatDT

Saying Ballard "punted" on the season makes it sound like tanking. I don't think he's tanking. I think he is prioritizing building culture and getting the young guys experience, and accepting whatever comes in terms of wins. That much seems pretty obvious.

I understand what you are saying. Let me clarify - I don’t think Ballard is specifically trying to loose, so I wouldn’t call in tanking. However, I believe he knows the team could be much better than it is this season and he was willing to sacrifice a competitive season for evaluation and, yes, to a lesser degree better draft position / capital. I don’t have some moral issue with that. I understand the thought process and I’ve said before that his job is to have a plan and follow it through. I respect that. My main disagreement has to do with the presence of Luck. Other than that I might agree with him. But where the average career is something like 3-4 years and your main asset (Luck) is one hit away from being your biggest liability (dead contract) I have a hard time taking the 3-4 year long view that Ballard is. And I don’t believe it is required for this team to become a contender.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

You list CB as an obvious issue and I agree. However I don’t agree that it’s manned by vets. 67% of the snaps taken so far have been by 2nd year players. The two current snap leaders are 2nd year players. Desir is 3rd as a 5th year player. He meets the “been in the league several years” description you used. He accounts for 29% of the teams CB snaps. Milton accounts for the remaining 4%. He’s a 3 year vet. I’d say CB is a pretty young, inexperienced position and one that could have been upgraded.

You also mentioned WR. It’s another position that could have been upgraded, but it appears as if Ballard is holding it open for a draft pick. Grant on a 1 yr contract was the solution along with a bunch of young guys and the holdover Rogers.

LB is manned by a potential star in Leonard, an old journeyman in Goode, and several unspectacular young players. It was also an upgradeable position.


A review of the standings reveals the team is 2-5. The same record as last year. This is after getting its franchise QB back, improving its coaching, improving the O-line, improving the defense (apparently quite a bit), and improving the roster as a whole. My argument hasn’t been that Ballard hasn’t added talent, it’s that he was assembling a roster that wouldn’t win as much as it should. Too much forced youth, too much reliance on 1st and 2nd year players, too many holes left unfilled. Everything supposedly better, but same record - I’d say the facts back up my argument pretty well.

Your point about CBs is fair – they are younger than I was thinking. Still no rookies though, and I don’t think it was unreasonable to expect last year’s high second rounder (Wilson) to step up and claim one of the CB positions. I also recall reading that Ballard explored resigning Melvin but was given a crazy price tag (something like 5 years / $50 million), and as I mentioned in another post, the 2018 free agent CB pool hasn’t proven to be very good at this early point. So perhaps this is one area where Ballard was content to take his lumps in the hopes that some of the young players like Wilson and Moore would emerge. This would be consistent with his strategy and does not equate to “sacrificing the season” – as I’ve said many times before, having Luck gives us a chance to win any game and a legitimate chance to win the division. The decision to focus on youth probably means that we won’t play quite as well as we would have with a bunch of free agent vets in the short term, but is a much better long term strategy.

On the WR issue, I'll just say that WR was way down the list of priorities this last offseason. While Grant's contract was for one year, I've always viewed it as sort of a "show me" contract where he could earn a second Colts contract if he played well, so I personally don't think Ballard was holding a place for a rookie. And let's not forget that Ballard did draft a couple of WRs.

Not sure why you bring up LBs. Leonard is a star and Walker has been great as well. If you got your wish and we addressed this issue in free agency, are you concerned at all that we perhaps wouldn't have ever drafted Leonard?

Lastly, your point about the team’s record is completely off base. The numbers absolutely do NOT back up your point – Racehorse’s post illustrated this perfectly. We were outscored 222 to 119 in the first seven games last year! We were thoroughly smoked by the better teams we played, and were only able to eke out victories against two of the worst teams in the league. The gap between our team and the better teams in the league has shrunken dramatically since last year, as evidenced by our performance in the games this year – we nearly beat the SB champs in their own stadium! By virtually any measurable statistic, we have improved by leaps and bounds over last year. And by the way, the improvement is on both offense and defense, so it’s certainly not all attributable to Luck. If your eyes don’t tell you this, and all you can see is our 2-5 record, then you need better glasses.

As to this last point, I should also mention that if you acknowledge that the talent level on the team has greatly increased, but your criticism is that the record doesn’t reflect this, then perhaps your beef is with Reich rather than Ballard. That would be another discussion, and another one where I would disagree with you, but it has no place in a discussion about Ballard’s performance.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Your point about CBs is fair – they are younger than I was thinking. Still no rookies though, and I don’t think it was unreasonable to expect last year’s high second rounder (Wilson) to step up and claim one of the CB positions. I also recall reading that Ballard explored resigning Melvin but was given a crazy price tag (something like 5 years / $50 million), and as I mentioned in another post, the 2018 free agent CB pool hasn’t proven to be very good at this early point.

I don’t remember ever complaining about letting Melvin walk, only how young and thin Ballard left the position.

Originally Posted by Chaka

So perhaps this is one area where Ballard was content to take his lumps in the hopes that some of the young players like Wilson and Moore would emerge. This would be consistent with his strategy and does not equate to “sacrificing the season” ........

I agree with the first point - Ballard decided to take his lumps. I also agree it’s consistent with his strategy, but it’s one I disagree with. Does it equate to “sacrificing the season”? That one decision? No. That philosophy spread across the roster? Yes, to me it does.

Originally Posted by Chaka

.......- as I’ve said many times before, having Luck gives us a chance to win any game and a legitimate chance to win the division.

Agreed. And it’s why having the same record as last year illustrates my point. The single biggest factor in the Colts winning football games last year did not play. Do you think if Luck played last year the Colts finish 4-12? I sure as hell don’t. Do you think they would have finished 4-12 last year if they had this coaching staff instead of Pagano’s? I sure as hell don’t. So why the hell do you and Race keep harping on the fact the team looks better than last year? They fucking should!! They have a franchise QB playing instead of one acquired 6 days before his first start and they have a competent coaching staff. If you made no other changes than those two they would have won several more games IMO and if nothing else looked like a competent football team. Do you disagree?

Originally Posted by Chaka

decision to focus on youth probably means that we won’t play quite as well as we would have with a bunch of free agent vets in the short term.......

Finally, we agree on my first point. Ballard’s consistent strategy for building the team is the primary reason the Colts are 2-5. Yes they look better. Yes they perform better in many ways. But they have had a hard time winning. That’s a pretty damn accurate description of what happens with a youth movement in any sport I’m aware of. And it’s been the complaint I’ve had since I noticed it that you and several others have told my I’m wrong about. You admit you expected a better record. Race admits he expected a better record. Yet you both consistently tell me how I’m wrong and the facts don’t back me up. Then point to last years identical record and say, but we look better so therefore you are wrong. No, this is exactly what I expected. The team should look better. Just bring back Luck, switch the coaching staff, and make no other changes and the team would look significantly better. Stats would be better. That’s what good to great QB play and competent coaching will do. It’s why they are such huge factors in team success.

Originally Posted by Chaka

......but it is a much better long term strategy.

See now we disagree again. I absolutely agree that just signing old aging vets isn’t the solution, but let’s not pretend there is no middle ground. Adding several appropriately aged vets does not keep you from building a core. Players earning their spots, competing and learning from some vets doesn’t keep them from developing. Quite the contrary. In my view it’s one of the best ways to establishing a winning culture. Ballard has preached competition but his method and your description of his process seem to indicate it isn’t completely real. He doesn’t want a better player taking reps from Moore or Hairston. That’s not competition or a winning culture in my book.

Originally Posted by Chaka

On the WR issue, I'll just say that WR was way down the list of priorities this last offseason. While Grant's contract was for one year, I've always viewed it as sort of a "show me" contract where he could earn a second Colts contract if he played well, so I personally don't think Ballard was holding a place for a rookie. And let's not forget that Ballard did draft a couple of WRs.

I disagree that WR wasn’t a priority. It’s certainly wasn’t #1 and I’ll concede there were a lot of holes to fill, but WR2 was a glaring hole on the roster. I disagree on the contract simply because it was for one year with no team option. I said it when it was signed - I’d have rather paid more for this year (considering the cap space) to buy a team option for a second year. If Grant would have broken out after playing with Luck, how do you gauge his value for that 2nd contract? He would want to get paid equal to his performance. I don’t see Ballard over paying him for one good year, do you? So the chances of Grant being on the next year were slim. Either he sucks and is therefore replaced or he is so good the team doesn’t resign him. There is very little middle ground available where he performs at a level he doesn’t need replaced but doesn’t want a bigger contract than Ballard will pay after one year. That’s why I see him as a place holder.

Yes, he drafted some guys late. Again, Grant is a place holder for Cain or a draft pick next year.

Originally Posted by Chaka

Not sure why you bring up LBs. Leonard is a star and Walker has been great as well. If you got your wish and we addressed this issue in free agency, are you concerned at all that we perhaps wouldn't have ever drafted Leonard?

I’ll disagree that Walker has been great. I’ll admit he’s certainly not the biggest issue though.

Am I worried that we would have passed on Leonard if we had signed LB help in free agency? No, not at all. Nor am I really worried that he would have been stuck behind a vet. I expect Ballard to find and draft talented players - I do not specifically advocate drafting for need. I also expect the coaching staff to identify talent, develop players, and get them on the field. That seems like standard team operations to me.

Originally Posted by Chaka

Lastly, your point about the team’s record is completely off base. The numbers absolutely do NOT back up your point – Racehorse’s post illustrated this perfectly. We were outscored 222 to 119 in the first seven games last year! We were thoroughly smoked by the better teams we played, and were only able to eke out victories against two of the worst teams in the league. The gap between our team and the better teams in the league has shrunken dramatically since last year, as evidenced by our performance in the games this year – we nearly beat the SB champs in their own stadium! By virtually any measurable statistic, we have improved by leaps and bounds over last year. And by the way, the improvement is on both offense and defense, so it’s certainly not all attributable to Luck. If your eyes don’t tell you this, and all you can see is our 2-5 record, then you need better glasses.

I’ll state again - by virtue of adding a franchise QB and a competent coaching staff the team damn well should look better! And I agree they do. And they are certainly more fun to watch. As I said, the results we see are typical of a young team. To some degree you’ve admitted that and admitted they haven’t won as much as you thought they would. That’s pretty much my point.

Originally Posted by Chaka

As to this last point, I should also mention that if you acknowledge that the talent level on the team has greatly increased, but your criticism is that the record doesn’t reflect this, then perhaps your beef is with Reich rather than Ballard. That would be another discussion, and another one where I would disagree with you, but it has no place in a discussion about Ballard’s performance.

No, Ballard put the roster together and I’m mostly seeing what I expected to from the roster construction. I’m happy and surprised in the outcome of certain areas (like Leonard), but the overall outcome is what I expected. You were the one expecting more wins and happy with the roster makeup. Sounds like you are the one that should have an issue with Reich.

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by rm1369

A review of the standings reveals the team is 2-5. The same record as last year. This is after getting its franchise QB back, improving its coaching, improving the O-line, improving the defense (apparently quite a bit), and improving the roster as a whole. My argument hasn’t been that Ballard hasn’t added talent, it’s that he was assembling a roster that wouldn’t win as much as it should. Too much forced youth, too much reliance on 1st and 2nd year players, too many holes left unfilled. Everything supposedly better, but same record - I’d say the facts back up my argument pretty well

Through 7 games, here is the point differential for the Colts:

2017: -103
2018: +4

I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point, but your focus on the team being 2-5 on October 24, 2018 is not only an invalid metric, it misses the bigger picture of what's going on with this franchise.

[rcubed]

Originally Posted by VeveJones007

Through 7 games, here is the point differential for the Colts:

2017: -103
2018: +4

I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point, but your focus on the team being 2-5 on October 24, 2018 is not only an invalid metric, it misses the bigger picture of what's going on with this franchise.

wow.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by VeveJones007

Through 7 games, here is the point differential for the Colts:

2017: -103
2018: +4

I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point, but your focus on the team being 2-5 on October 24, 2018 is not only an invalid metric, it misses the bigger picture of what's going on with this franchise.

I’m not focused on the 2-5 record. I’ve not shit talked the team or been a troll in game threads. I have never called for Ballard’s firing. And I have never said he isn’t going to get the team back to contending status. I’ve simply said his approach is slower than it needs to be and this season is a casualty of it. I’ve been told I was wrong since before the season started by people who now admit they expected a better record, but still want to tell me how wrong I am. Even though this is largely what I expected.