Exactly. Why do 80% of our drafts picks the last 5 years have to be a reach.

RB Jeremy McNichols added to the PS.

By your definition for a starting player or ESPN's or some one on an internet web site for draft picks?

Read Moneyball. It's about baseball, but it's also about pro sports. EVERY team can put a value on any player, what that player is worth to THEM. And unless you have inside information, there is very little any fan can know about who they value.

Every team has a VISION to get to the Superbowl. HOW they get there is the mission and teh mission statement is the plane of how to get there.

We won't know that until the end of the season.

Just quit with the stupid CAPITALIZATION already.

Every team has a vision huh? Thanks for pointing that out, otherwise no one would have figured that gem out.

Many people here were calling for the Colts to take Kareem Hunt last year. We passed on him and took Basham instead. If we picked him last year, we wouldn't have needed to draft more backs this year, but hey, great vision by Ballard. 20 years from now hopefully some of these reach draft picks develop.

Well I finally figured out you really arent jesus, or you wouldnt be asking these questions, since jesus would already know. You have the benifit of hindsight. If you had the power of foresight, you should apply to colts for a job. Dont tell them you go by the name Jesus Christ, it may hurt your chances

We have claimed S Corey Moore and DE Al-Quadin Muhammad off waivers and waived DE Ryan Delaire and CB Lenzy Pipkins:

I hoped Delaire would stick :cool:

The whole hindsight argument is dumb when a lot of Colts fans were wanting Hunt prior to and during the draft, not after seeing what he did for the Chiefs.

If enough of these hindsight arguments keep happening, it's because Ballard is drafting like shit. Hopefully he stops taking project players.

Colts fans want a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they should be done. You can cherry-pick star players from any draft and say the Colts should have drafted them, but the reality is that it's not that clear at the time. Just as many "Colts Fans" were down on the idea of taking ANY running back so early in the draft, and the prevailing wisdom on this board was that running backs are largely interchangeable and there's no need to "waste" a high pick on them anyway. If Hunt was such an obvious choice, he wouldn't have lasted until the end of the 3rd round. And what's more valuable - a premium pass rusher or a premium RB? And who's to say Hunt would have performed anywhere near as well behind the Colts' OL anyway?

If Basham flames out, then it's on Ballard - no doubt - but it's still only a third round pick and probably doesn't merit all of the attention that particular pick gets. Lots of "project" players are taken in the third round because the sure things are long gone by then. If he was a first rounder, I'd understand. Ballard got some useful pieces in his first draft - Hooker (a pick, I might add, which everyone here loved), Mack, Hairston - and has a few guys who are still trying to prove themselves (Wilson, Basham, Stewart). From your post, you'd think the draft was a complete failure.

I might also add that 10 of his 11 draft picks this year survived the final cut as well (all except Fountain), and two (Nelson and Leonard) are showing early signs of stardom (if you can say that about any guard). And I really don't think that Ballard's just keeping all these guys around to save face, given his demonstrated willingness to cut bait on his own draft picks and free agents without hesitation.

Again, I really think all of the criticisms of Ballard boil down to his lack of spending in free agency. That will be remedied at some point by necessity.

There were more sure things than some of Ballard's second round picks. My biggest problems with this draft were the loss of value from not trading down from 6 and the use of picks 52 and 64 on Turay and Lewis. If I'd been running the draft, when the Broncos selected Chubb, I'd've taken the Bills offer of 12 and 22 and done the following:

12) LB Tremaine Edmunds
22) OG Isaiah Wynn
36) LB Darius Leonard
37) OG Braden Smith
52) DE Lorenzo Carter
64) DE/DT Rasheem Green

I feel like that would have given the team the foundation of a strong defensive core, as well as still providing the OL help that was needed. We'll see how Ballard's group turns out.

Thanks captain obvious.

He has had two drafts, one of which happened about 5 months ago. That's a little silly, lets at least watch one game that counts this season before jumping off the cliff.

Apparently it wasn't.

My 2 cents:

1. The 2017 draft by Ballard was done with him still having to use Grigson's scouting staff / reports. The fact that we got anyone worthwhile out of it is a somewhat minor miracle.

2. The 2018 draft is the first one using Ballard's scouting staff / reports / criteria / guidelines and it is 5 months old. Why don't we wait for, I don't know, 4 whole regular season games to get in the books before declaring it a complete disaster. What? Too slow for you?

3. Ballard is not an idiot even though some imply on here that he should change his name to Skippy the clown. He has clearly said that he will sign quality free agents WHEN the time is right and they can come into the locker room, provide synergy and leadership to the club and help get us to the SB.

4. For those of you who are too blinded by your hate of all things Colts, the time is not right yet.

5. Andrew Luck is now in his 7th year in the league with about 5 1/2 years of play experience. The vast majority of long-term elite franchise QBs are most effective between their 6th/7th year in the league up until their 12th - 14th year in the league (look at the stats). Window on Luck is now just opening; not closing.

6. IF Ballard can build a team over the next 2-3 years that can challenge for the SB for the following 5 seasons, would that not be a good thing? Real Colts fans would say "yes" rather than chasing the "feel good" fiction that current year success is all that matters.

7. Ballard may not work out in the long run. Nothing is certain. But, holy crud, the amount of whine and hate in this thread for a 2nd year GM is truly unhinged.

8. You don't know football better than the professionals. Sorry, I know a lot of football and you know a lot of football and they all know a ton more than we do combined. Now, their vision about their knowledge may suck (i.e. Grigson chasing the feel-good current year success model) but even Ryan Grigson knows more about football than we do. To see and say that you do know more than Ballard and his coaching staff is just plain dumb.

9. That said, John Simon and Jonathan Hankins. Yeah, those 2 cuts I just don't get. Oh, I understand the "age verses reps for young players" and "don't fit the system" arguments but I think they are a bit weak. Those guys, IMO, could still be helping us. In Ballard's and Reich's decision, they could not. Of all the moves this year, those are the onese that I scratch my head most about.

10. Of course, the fact that Hankins has not been signed by anyone else tends to shoot my theory in the foot but, as most in thead are doing when confronted by logic, whateves.....

11. I, for one, am looking forward to this year's Colts football regardless of their eventual record. I want to see my horseshoes play an offense system that was invented sometime in the last century. I want to see a defense that, hopefully, makes plays. I want to see Andrew Luck slinging the football again. I think 7-9 wins and I hope I am right but I will enjoy this season (like all the rest) regardless of the record.

12. Find your enjoyment in the season and team we will have, Freaks. Rather than the team you wish we had. Are you a glass half empty or a glass half full guy/gal?

Walk Worthy,

schreck, by your own numbers the process can be as much as 1/2 of Luck’s most effective years. Can you point to a team embarking on a successful full rebuild / youth movement as their franchise QB entered his most productive years? I’m not suggesting it hasn’t happened, but I can’t remember one.

Another question. Let’s pretend Ballard had said something along these lines coming in - “Look, we have the most important ingredients for success in place. Andrew Luck gives us a chance to win everytime we step on the field. And we aren’t going to waste that. We are going to build a coaching staff and roster that is innovative, tough, and aggressive. And we are going to do it quickly. We won’t mortgage our future for short term gains, but we aren’t going to spend 3-4 years waiting for unproven potential to eventually start producing. We will look for high ceiling and high impact players, but at the end of the day production and accountability are what it takes to build sustained success. Things change to quickly in this league to have your vision so far down the road that you loose sight of the present.” If Ballard had said that coming in would you have disagreed and said it was a shortcut? Would you have said that the only way to build a successful team from where they started was to embark on a 4 yr rebuild? Do you agree with the hard / long rebuild because you think it’s the only way or simply because it’s the way Ballard has chosen?

It's less people think Ballard sucks (though there's no evidence he's good; there's just no evidence of anything) and more people don't trust Ballard because this organization has given fans zero reason to trust it over the last 2-3 years.

Per Big Joe this morning, he said Ballard was trying to interest another team in a trade. When there was no interest, he cut him.

Come on Shrek

Nobody is pretending to know more than Ballard. That is just pointless bullshit

This is precisely how I feel.

Phil Simms, John Elway?

Sherck you are better than calling people critical of Ballard.'s moves "haters". Give me a break. I don't even dislike Ballard. I think he's made mistakes. And he's owned some of them. I think he's taking longer than he needs to. What I dislike are the fiercely loyal happy horse-shitters that love everything he does and refuse to even consider that a rookie GM might be making bad decisions. The ball swingers. What has Ballard done to deserve unflinching loyalty? Where is the loyalty to the players?

I dont see where Elway applies at all. I can’t remember any bottoming out and subsequent forced youth movement from the Broncos. A review of NFL rosters doesn’t show one either.

Simms kinda comes close, but doesn’t really fit either. In the ‘84 season (his 5th), Simms was far from being a franchise QB. Parcells had even named Brunner over him as his starter at one point as Simms had both injury and consistency concerns. I believe he had even asked to be traded at one point. However, in the ‘84 season the Giants did start an inordinate amount of young players along with Simms starting 16 games for the first time in his career. That did eventually end in a Super Bowl in ‘87. Of course this was also a very different NFL, prior to unrestricted free agency. And Simms wasn’t considered a franchise QB entering his prime when New York made the decisions they did. I suppose some hope for the 4 yr rebuild though.

Exactly. We are free to criticize him at times when we want. I'll give him credit when the situation calls for it as well, like with Leonard. It doesn't mean anyone hates Ballard. I don't. However, he needs to stop taking project players early in the draft when there are guys available that are starter quality and can contribute right away. This team needs guys who can play. It's not helpful to keep drafting guys who may devleop two, three, or even four years down the road. You can do that when you're a talented team and that guy is just a depth player. We aren't that. Will those guys develop? Well I hope so, but I hope we don't have to wait a long time to find out. This in turn causes them to cut players who are better now in the hopes of hanging onto a guy that we hope develops.

fuck. is it football yet?

So he can't call people attacking Ballard "haters", but it's entirely fair for you to characterize those who defend against those attacks as "fiercely loyal happy horse-shitters that love everything he does and refuse to even consider that a rookie GM might be making bad decisions"?

People devolve into savagery without meaningful football. The regular season keeps us sane.

My thought was Roethlisberger, but since he won early it probably doesn't count. They had a few down years in 2012 and 2013 going 8-8 in both seasons and definitely had some turnover on their roster.

Add in Seattle and New Orleans a few yrs ago

According to these stats for the last 4 yrs we had one of the oldest rosters in the league

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.phi...7-edition/amp/

I don’t know omaha. I think he’s into something with you. You’ve disagreed with about everything Ballard has done. So there fore you think your way would be smarter.

In response. I don’t think there are many. BALL SWINGERS here. There are quite a few that actually realize that Ballard had to rid the team of the Grigshit and Pagshit and the players they brought in. And are also maybe waiting to see how his vision plays out before whining that his decisions are bad

The team was old and not good A change had to be made ....many changes

I think most of you will be shocked at what this team is going to look like compared to what we have seen in preseason. I may be wrong but I’m giving him the Benifit of the doubt saving judgement for a hindsight’s version in the future

Don’t remember Seattle doing that at all. Can you point out when? The question was a purposeful, forced youth movement with a franchise QB in place. Something similar to the entire Colts LB core having like 6 combined starts. Basically a team knowingly sacrificing several peak QB years to completely rebuild a roster with extremely young players.

New Orleans is by far the closest answer suggested. Bree’s was in his 14th season, but still playing at a very high level.

Show me the posters who love everything Ballard does? I question his moves, as do I believe many on this board. It's just we've seen little evidence to prove his moves wrong.

Ballard, perhaps wrongly so, went and got players who fit Pagano's system last season, just to give Pagano a real chance of improving the defense. It didn't happen and we knew it wasn't going to happen. You gotta admire Ballard's humility to do that, even when he also doubted the results.

Fast forward to this season and Ballard got rid of most of the Pagano stench, to give this regime the same chance he gave Pagano.

Hankins doesn't have a job. Tell what gives there? Anderson isn't even starting on a Jets team that runs a scheme that's fits his talents. What would he have done here?

Ballard admitted that he made a mistake by holding onto Simon too long and trying him in a variety of roles. It didn't help Simon and it didn't help the team.

Ballard deserves no praise for any of his personnel moves the last 2 years. He would probably tell you that himself. Because at the end of the day it's all about W/L. Sure we can question him and I often do. Just not to the point that I always think that the sky is falling every time he makes a decision that I don't agree with.

Who know's maybe with ample playing time and a few games under their belts, guys like Basham and Turay can at least become key contributors. I would certainly hope that each could top Simon's career high 5 sacks from 2 years ago.

Us loyal happy horse-shitters are just saying...Let's wait and see.

Now... this yr

Yeah no shit ..... impressive point. Thanks

So basically you have no opinion until it becomes obvious? Hard to be wrong that way I guess.

I agree with you. I would like to add that while this will probably a tough year, I think there are good signs. That's what I think from what I've seen. I like that the O line is headed in what appears to be the right direction. I like the D is younger and faster. I like that the offense seems to be less predictive.

It could be a worse record this year, than last. It's absolutely possible. But that's not going to dampen my enthusiasm for Sunday's game.

I’m curious, at what point would people thinks it’s fair to criticize Ballard? I didn’t pay attention to see when disagreeing with Grigson became considered legitimate and not “sky is falling” overreaction. Puck says he’ll wait to have an opinion until he has the benefit of hindsight. Is that the way to not be considered a hater?

Not at all. I like that Ballard had a good reputation. And I am not calling for his head or anything like that. I am just not impressed with what he has done. For example:

1). We have Andrew Luck. As far as I know he is healthy. You build your team knowing you have a top 5 qb in the league. Meaning that you can win quickly.

2). The build through the draft propaganda is annoying. Every team builds through the draft. That is the best and cheapest way to add talent. We aren’t doing something special here.

3). Hankins, simon and Anderson are talented football players. Cutting good players speaks directly against the competition mantra he tries to sell. Scheme fit isn’t an issue either. That is a lie.

4). I like that Ballard seems intent to build the lines. I agree with that. Not sure why he took the dudes he took but at this point I have no problem letting that play out.

5). Saving that much cash is asinine. You can use some to supplement the roster. Unless he thinks he can do what nobody has ever done and nail the draft every year. He will be lucky to get 2 really good players a year in the draft. Adding talent with the available cap space is just smart.

6). This roster, on paper, is unproven at best and a disaster at worst. That is just a fact.

I don’t hate Ballard. I don’t like that he is not taking advantage of all his resources and playing only one hand. He has a home run hitter in luck and he is asking him to bunt. That is my main issue.

And god damn shrek needs to stop editing my posts. I have never touched a post out of spite and never would. That has never been what this board was about. Shows his lack of integrity.

And it is you’re btw.

Its a weak, young team right now.

8-8 will be a big accomplishment this season

I am not thrilled with Ballard so far. Has been a mixed bag for the most part, but I just don't understand some of the cuts and lost players on D this past season or saving so much in cap space right now.

I wonder how much has to do with keeping Pagano for a year beyond Grigson. Would have made much more sense to clean how all at the same time. I am sure that was an Irsay decision. It did put Ballard as well in a tough spot for one year, wondering what to do with the roster last year.

Ultimately much of how we judge Ballard will be based on how the draft picks pain out because that is how he is choosing to build. If he refuses to use cap money on big free agents AND proves he can't draft well, its another bad choice for GM.

Thus far it appears he whiffed on Quincy Wilson and Tarell Basham, not a good start. Maybe they will surprise us though. And the kick returner he drafted can't even hold onto the ball after a punt, let alone return it.

Its going to be a long season.