That are better than the "starters" that the previous GM brought in.

3 will be starters and there will be improvement from last yr because of them

Actually maybe 4 will be if they don't draft Lamp

to be determined. they weren't starters for their old teams for a reason.

our defense improves mostly if langford and anderson get healthy and back to normal. not the average joes ballard brought in

How about we hope Ballard's average joes are better than Grigson's average joes? We at least know the Colts got younger and should get better production out of his additions than those Colts who either retired or were released. Obviously it gets easier if as Omaha points out Anderson and Langford come back healthy and revert back to what is expected.

Im hoping.... but average Joes are average Joes no matter who's the GM.

Grigson didn't bring in average Joes, he brought in Godawful Jills.

Trent Richardson, LaRon Landry, Trent Cole, etc were all worse than you would expect a street free agent to be.

It sucks that we are arguing over which GM picked up the best scrubs.

Absolutely, as the roster currently stands. The true difference will be from the draft (hopefully).

That looks like the plan. Establish a base of defensive guys that are solid but not great, and draft the future greats. Just don't screw up the draft!

Yep, but you can never afford to screw up the draft, regardless of your free agent strategy.

At the same time, they are going to have plenty of cap space next year that I hope they add one or two real difference-makers, but I've already elaborated on that throughout these threads.

Take a look at KC's cap situation. On top of that they have to add 10 draft picks somehow. I bet there is either some cuts going to happen or they will be trading this yrs picks for next yrs etc...

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/cap/


maybe some players Ballard has an idea that will be casualties in the coming weeks IDK

that is pretty sad

considering we had 50 million to spend, play in a very winnable division, and need talent everywhere.

great plan


and in 3 years we will be calling for him to be fired for being terrible in free agency

Great strategy to me signed up and coming guys that played on good defenses and couldn't get on the field right away because they played behind good players. IMO Sheard and Simon's game is trending up and neither is too beat up

In three years? Sure, maybe. But you can say that about any GM in the league, let alone a rookie new-hire. I like what Ballard has done so far, and I'm at least willing to give him a chance. You post as if he's already a failure.

I would have liked to bring in some proven playmakers, but maybe we already did and don't realize it yet. Aiken, Simon and perhaps Sheard could be very good for us.

i don't know what he is yet. but i am not thrilled so far.

but with a lot of money to spend, eventually you have to use it on talent and not backups. or you won't have talent.

building through the draft is a great strategy but at best you are going to hit on 50 to 60 percent of the players. and not all of those will be stars. if you have the cash, you use it to bring in talent. if he is unwilling to do that, then he will have a very hard time being successful.

I agree with all of that, but I just don't think the Colts were in the position to go after the expensive talent. Outside of a handful of players, that defense is/was a shambles. And it wasn't getting any younger either. I think they need to build a foundation first and then add better talent later. It looks like Ballard is trying to do that. I'm expecting it to take at least two years. I agree with your post, but the timing is wrong.

But who are the foundational players? Are those guys coming in the draft?

Anderson, Ridgeway, Parry, Simon, Sheard, E Jackson, Morrison, Geathers. Green. Most are in the "solid" to above average category. None are in the "great" category but if Anderdon could return to form he could be.

Add 4 more solid players from the 2017 draft to add to V Davis and a stud or two from next year's free agency class and we are much closer to a solid defense than a "gloom & doom" prophet like you will admit.

Cheers,

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I'd say Butler, Davis, Langford, and potentially Simon

Yeah, that's the elephant in the room about not bringing any big names in. I'm thinking along the same line as sherck's last post. Some of the foundational guys will have to come in the draft, but we have some guys already who can do it this year. But I don't know who the Redding-like leader of that group will be (if anyone).

That is a very laughable list. Especially since green is on there. But pretty much all of that foundation is grigsons.

That is a foundation of backups.

Yeah, it pretty much is. But it's a foundation containing a lot more youth with potential than what we had before. What would you have done differently? Spend $40M on 3-4 established players and roll with what we had?

The only way to tke that list is that Grigson is gone for being an ass, not for being inept at building a team.

Sorry, can't take anything that lists Antonio Morrison as "solid", a "foundational player", or anything other than "needs replaced immediately" seriously. You've seriously overrated a lot of those players, mostly the Grigson holdovers you listed. I wouldn't consider any of Ridgeway, Parry, Jackson, Morrison, Geathers, or Green to be "solid", aka an average NFL starter. Some of them have the potential to get there, but even that list is short (Ridgeway, Geathers, Green). This is why defense needs to be the focus of the draft, the Colts defense is still bottom half of the league at best after adding a lot of pieces through free agency because they lack top end talent at most positions on that side of the ball. That talent is most often and best acquired through the draft.

So who should they have pursued in this free agency? Should they have offered 10-20% more in salary than what those players received? That's probably a minimum the Colts would've had to add to an offer, assuming each player's decision was based solely on money. Joe All-Pro gets an offer of 4 years 40 mil, Colts can't just offer 4 years 41 mil and have them begging to sign here instead since the team is in a bit of structural disarray.

Your arguments are a bit contradictory here. If it was all about the money for the players, a 4 year, $41 million deal would in fact top a 4 year, $40 million deal.

I'm saying that the Colts aren't a top destination for free agents so an additional million dollars isn't typically going to be enough to get someone to change where they ended up going in free agency. The Colts would have to offer more than just the offer the guy signed, plus a dollar. Their offer would have to be considerably more.

Any marquee free agent could choose from a dozen other teams who have as good as, or better, of a situation than the Colts, especially when talking about the defensive side of the ball. Situation meaning everything from coaching structure, philosophy, teammates who will pull their weight to help the marquee player keep his numbers up (so he's not always covering for some JAG next to him who isn't getting it done).

You can't sign a free agent and expect him to be a foundation player

who was out there? Calais Campbell?

To me resigning Butler was keeping a foundation player especially at Safety he could end up being an all pro next year

You can't? Peyton Manning? Kurt warner? Reggie white? Charles Woodson? Jerry rice? Willie roaf. Need I continue

I am not going to pick a part that whole list, but Manning was not a really a foundation player signing for Denver, he put them over the top.

What? Manning was a franchise QB for them for two years. That's necessary to succeed in the NFL, unless you have an incredible defense. He wasn't an ancillary piece for them until 2015. Prior to that, he was a key component of their team.

They had a solid team and brought Manning in to take them over the top. The foundation of a solid team was in place.

^^^ the defense was their foundation.

They won a weak division with an 8-8 record the year prior and their offense was the driving force behind their appearance in Super Bowl XLVIII. You can say that team had a solid foundation in place, but not while simultaneously saying this one doesn't.

Bears waived DB Tracy Porter. Any use here for him?

They also had Demaryius and Julius Thomas and Eric Decker, giving PM good players to work with on the outside.

Yes.

This is the kind of vet CB signing I would expect Ballard to make. Cap or surprise cut of a guy who has started a lot of games in the NFL, has 21 PDs over past 2 seasons, is only 31 years old and will be pretty cheap. He has played a lot of press coverage in his career.

He would be a great 1 year insurance policy as a marker for a highly drafted rookie to have to come in and beat in order to become the CB2.

There will be others as the off season continues but I hope we sign Porter or someone like him who can give solid service and be someone that highly motivated rookies can work to beat.

Cheers,

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk