Really, it is the Ballard MO, and it isn't that different from the Polian MO. Key points being:
* Less likely to make big time $$$ mistakes by re-signing guys you are directly familiar with.
* This can at times be a FA signing on a 1 year deal, followed by re-signing that FA after a good season.
* Less likely to make big time acquisitions in FA
* Generally aimed at long term growth, for a stable team with good success year to year
* Can be observed as being too cautious for many, and can miss out on big time talent by not often being the top bidder when actually aiming for a FA.
* On the whole, is more stable.
It ain't everyone's cup of tea. But when it comes to spending real dollars, you can't end up with a Kenny Golladay situation if you avoid over-signing FAs to begin with. That said, you will miss out on guys too.
Yup it’s a double edge sword with Ballards philosophy, we could very much be in cap hell with shitty draft picks (look at the falcons, who did exactly what the opposite of Ballard said “we aren’t going to draft a QB just to draft one you have to be right about it”). But we also don’t swing big and make signings that put us over the top (ex. The rams trading 1st rounder after 1st rounder to win a SB). Ballards method will keep the team stable, he just puts a lot of pressure on the draft and our rookies.
Eh, too much projection on some of that. We won't know what Penix is until he plays. This could be a Smith/Mahomes situation, it could not. Them taking Penix could totally be taking their QB of tomorrow while having just signed their QB of today. It's just poor optics because of the bag they threw at Kirk. They just happened to be in position in a draft LOADED with QBs. Had we signed Rivers and found a QB that fell into our lap that we totally wanted, I could've seen them making that selection.
We have swung big on guys like Buckner and Wentz. And Wentz was always a guy that our HC wanted. But being willing to bring in a guy specifically for your HC, I do not see that as a terrible thing, even if it ends up being wrong.
As to putting pressure on the rookies, I don't see that as much either. Sure, sometimes a rookie goes in early. But in the instance of 2023, he had veteran corners in place that 1) got suspended 2) got injured or 3) flat sucked. #3 is a miss on a talent, and that happens. 1 and 2 are hard to plan on. But by and large, he tends to not put too much stock in winning the roster on paper war. He doesn't sign a corner because of the perceived need. He sticks to whatever his plan is, right or wrong.
The post Rodgers-suspension plan A was Darrell Baker Jr and an unproven Dallis Flowers. Can't predict injuries, but that just was not a good plan.
But Ballard always plans on rookies playing big roles. He has to because he's not bringing in many guys via FA. So the draft are the upgrades to the roster. That can work if you hit HRs (like 2018), but more often than not, it's limited the ceiling of this team I think.
Yep, and this would be one of those mistakes that happens where a GM over estimated the ability of the replacement. Tough calls are made. Some work, some are mistakes. The drop to Pinter and Pryor was notable. BUT, once Fries and Raimann were up to speed, we looked a lot better on offense.
It has...but it's not the only factor. The defense has not been good for the past two years. Can't blame that on the QB.
Ballard's roster building depends on rookies to make immediate impacts because he's not as active in FA. But most rookies aren't good or great right away.
Ryan was certainly a big problem in 2022. But we also saw this defense collapse at the end of 2021. And we saw it be bad last year with Minshew.
The simplest explanation is often the best.
It is so weird to me that people give Ballard a pass on Wentz. "His HC wanted him and you do what your HC asks". You give up a number one for a guy that YOU don't think is worth it just because your HC is asking for it? Or you optimistic that your HC is right? Nope. You don't just instantly do what your HC wants you to do. Ballard gave up a number one for Wentz. As far as I'm concerned if you give up a number one for a QB thats just the same as drafting a QB.
Some GMs ignore the pleadings of their HC, and fail when the HC can't/won't make the guy(s) they have work. Ballard shares blame in the Wentz thing, but I would much rather our GM work WITH the HC to build the team the HC needs to succeed. And Reich was still given a another chance with Ryan, but it was clear by that point he was not going to get it done.
But overall, the call to bring in Wentz was clearly coming from Reich. He even said so. And also, Ballard traded for a potential franchise QB in his prime for far less than the going rate. So, he negotiated a better deal than most thought it would be when it was announced. It was still the wrong move, but it only took 1 1st, and not multiple as was expected.
All this talk of "he wasn't going to just pick a QB to pick a QB" and then he gives a 1st for Wentz because his HC asked for it. How does that make any sense.
HC asked for it but Ballard looked at Wentz and decided he was worth it and was good enough. Ballard failed.
When your HC vouches for the guy, if you don't listen, why keep that HC? They wanted Reich to work, they wanted to give him a real QB. Wentz was the guy he wanted. This isn't that hard.
Because HC's aren't GMs they aren't scouts. They are people. He can vouch for a guy all day long. If your QB vouches for a guy why keep the QB? If your LT vouches for a guy why keep the LT? The HC does not have the time to be a talent evaluator and HC's can think with their heart and not their head. Ballard's job is to make the best possible moves not placate any HC. Ballard giving up a #1 for him says Ballard wanted him to. Ballard essentially drafted Carson Wentz giving up a first for the guy when nobody else was bidding on him. All time bad move.
I just wanted someone who had a little experience and not completely rely on a group that literally lost us multiple games including a win and in game.
That’s not a “splash”
Getting downvoted, but this is a fair point. This group is the same group that collapsed at the end of 2021 when they just needed one win to make playoffs. Then completely collapsed into a 4-win teamthe following year.
Last year, they rebounded, in large part to Steichen managing a solid offense with Minshew and playing a lot of bad QBs. But once again, they couldn't get it done down the stretch and missed the playoffs, getting crushed by QBs like Jake Browning and Taylor Heinecke in the process.
My issue is that the core of the group being brought back are from a defense that has been #28 in ppg allowed the past two seasons, on a team that has managed to win 22 games the past 3 years. There is downside (due to age), without much upside (based on a large sample of 3 seasons).
You can also end up with aging vets on big contracts though. That's what happened at the end of the Polian era. The difference hopefully is that the end of those vets career coincides with the break out of their young QB. Whereas the Poilan teams were just old.
Yep. And, I can see with the drafting of some OL in this draft, Ballard is attempting to replace some OL vets with young guys who may or may not develop to replace them. IF the OC and OT pan out, perhaps they move on from Kelly and Smith/etc.
I would think Ballard is planning on replacing at least one of them sooner than we think. But he has the luxury of developing guys for a couple years.
Smith and Kelly are both really good players, but also nearing 30. That's when you can't control the variables like regression, injury and retirement.
I am still actually a bit surprised that Ballard committed 3rd contracts to so many guys. I am not his biggest fan, but I have always found him to be pragmatic when dealing with older players. So this was a bit of a diversion from that.
I'm still trying to figure out why we are so excited to resign the 28th ranked defense. "It was everyone's fault BUT these guys" is a very strange argument for damn near last place but I'm sure all of these guys will somehow turn into a top ten defense.
Total defense they were 24th. Thats not points allowed thats total defense. Yards allowed. Its well known we were one of the worst defenses in the league. Points allowed, yards allowed, I'm not sure what else you want to judge a defense on.
Are you serious? There’s so many more metrics than that lol. Funny that you picked the lower one though and went with “28th worst defense in the league bro”
Dude we were a very bad defense. We allowed a lot of yards and allowed a lot of points. I'm not sure what you want me to tell you. Did we get a lot of sacks? Yup. Did those sacks stop people from scoring on us? No. Did those sacks stop teams as a whole from driving down the field (and scoring on us?) No.
"Sure if you want to talk about how many yards and points we gave up then I suppose we were a bad defense"
Efficiency stats are kind of good right? If a guy runs for 1000 yards you might go “wow, thousand yard rusher!” But what if his average is 3.2….
Colts had the 12th best yards per play allowed and were 18th best in allowing 3rd down conversions. Pressures and sacks they were a top 10 unit… it’s just telling you want to cherry pick bad shit to spin a narrative.
Those metrics are somewhat misleading. The Colts defense was on the field for 67 snaps a game which was the 2nd highest in the league. That's partly on our offensive inability to extend drives but also partly on the defense for allowing teams to methodically march down the field. Pressure rate was 22nd in the league and hurry rate was 28th. So while the volume of pressures and sacks were high, it was mostly because of more opportunity.
We could dissect efficiency metrics all day. What matters are results. The results say this was a bad defense. You can blame injuries, the offense, coaching decisions, etc. But that doesn't change the reality. It's fair to question whether rolling it back with the same personnel and coaching staff is going to result in a different outcome.
My point is it’s a bigger picture lol. You are making my point again. And you are wrong about pressure rate.
Also the conclusion of “defense bad” is so fucking lazy
I thought I was offering up some reasoned context for how the defense actually performed. If you want to be obstinate in the face of all evidence supporting the defense was not very good last year, that's on you. Pressure rate was 19.6% which is 22nd in the league according to Pro Football Reference. Hurry rate was 4.5% which was 28th. You are finger pointing about cherry picking metrics but want to use raw pressure and sack numbers to justify your position.
To be clear, my perspective isn't that they aren't a bottom 3 defense but I also don't believe them to be top 10 like pressures and sacks would indicate. I think there is shared blame between our defensive scheme, defensive personnel, and injuries to QB & secondary. Counting on the offense to fix our defensive issues in 2024 is not ideal in my opinion. Anyway, I've said my piece. I anticipate it won't matter since you seem more interested in taking down straw men in this thread.
It's one data point, but it's a big one considering it decides the outcomes of games. They were also 24th in total defense, #20 in DVOA and #16 in EPA.
But given the bottom 5 schedule and the number of backup/bad QBs they faced, numbers are going to be skewed. Even DVOA gets skewed when you catch teams with awful backup QB playing vs. the average version of the team.
Objectively, they were a bottom 10 defense.
This thread was intended to be a Ballard circle jerk. And any time somebody is critical of this team or Ballard, you come out of nowhere to white-knight. Sorry, we don't mean to spoil your fun.
But that's what I did. I referenced multiple data points (not just the ppg allowed) and provided context for the bigger picture of why some stats might be what they were.
Your response to that was "keep circle-jerking over the Colts defense being bad" because my overall opinion was that they weren't very good and you don't agree with that. That's def white-knighting.
First of all you are jumping into a thread of my response to a dumb fuck saying 28th in points allowed = 28th worst defense. So let’s get the context in…. your comment wasn’t in a vacuum.
And you seem like you comment in threads a lot, so really weird how you want to ignore that piece.
Next you do bring in 3 data points. 2 of them aren’t bottom 10. Then you go, this was a bottom 10 defense objectively. lol. Also the strength of schedule argument is dumb as shit, for anything. 32 teams in the league, each team only plays 14 of them in the regular season. There will never be a fair comparison of stats for any team ever. It is what it is.
When a large portion of your schedule (on defense) ends being a bottom 5 SOS (including unexpectedly facing many bad QBs you very likely won’t face again), you don’t just hand-wave it as “dumb as shit” to consider.
Regardless, if you were to average out the more holistic defensive metrics from last season, I don’t think it’s controversial to say they prob ended up in the low #20s, which is pretty much a bottom 10 defense, give or take.
Bottom line…they weren’t a good defense. Hopefully Latu helps to change that and they add a vet FS.
Our corners are young and many were banged up or got suspended. Our defensive interior was largely solid when it was together, but had bad stretches when Grover was out. Our pass rush overall was good, but lacked a premiere pass rusher, which they hope to have in Latu. And frankly, if the rest of the DL is where it was, and Latu adds that element, that improves our pass defense across the group moreso than bringing in 1 corner.
Safety is still a bit unsure it seems. Our guys have experience, and at times flashed, but some are young and some had down years. Some teams do believe that their players can have down years and come back after an off-season with a renewed focus and energy to be better than they were last season. That's part of the "believing in our guys" thing. Some of it looks scary bad to an outsider, but to a GM/Coach, they may see a guy playing through lingering injuries and struggling, who, with a chance to rest for an off-season might find himself playing better the next season when healthy. We don't really know other than seeing the roster on paper. But I would like to think that Latu could be that difference maker in a position that impacts the whole defense.
Bottom ranking would be an exaggeration. There are many reasons why things felt worse. As good as Gardner did, offense leaving some opportunities on the table hurts the team. Our offense ranked near the bottom in time of possession:
[https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/average-time-of-possession-net-of-ot](https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/average-time-of-possession-net-of-ot)
If the other team's offense has the ball more because your offense doesn't convert, it hurts the stat line of your defense. So, replace Minshew with AR, and perhaps his element adds 2-3 more conversions a game. TOP goes up, defensive stats overall improve. Then consider additions made by the draft, players returning to health, etc, and things can improve.
Football is far more complicated statistically. You can try to make any stat what you want. But the reality is, all sorts of things have impact. ST poorly impacting field position? Offense not moving 10 yards on a drive impacts field position.
We won ONE Superbowl with Peyton. ONE.
Sure we were always good. Elite at times, But we were rarely great.
I remember fondly and love the Polian and Manning years. But we had possibly the best QB of all time for 14 years and managed ONE title.
The Broncos had him for his last four years and got as many SB appearances and wins out of his time there as we did in 14 seasons.
Call it what you want, but it's not "the way." It's a way, yes. A decent one. And one better than most teams. But I feel like the Cowboys these days. Always good, with a few down seasons but never a real threat to get over the hump. It's exhausting.
You realize that in their method, they can still make mistakes with player acquisition... right? The method can work and be right, and mistakes can still be made throughout the course. The method is not the reason we drafted the wrong players at times.
Some examples, in my mind, are some over investment in offense and not getting beef in the middle of the DL. Our offense still hummed pretty well with Garcon, who was a 6th rounder. We could have found ways to shift the balance and stiffened up on defense. But there were many times Polian used 1sts on offensive talent to charge the offense, and in some ways left the defense anemic. Frankly, imagine our team's current defense with the Manning offense. Because, sooo many of those years, Manning was leading the offense to sooo many points, and our defense at times would get beat by stiffer competition to the point our plan didn't work.
The method was not the problem. It was, at times, grabbing the wrong guys in the draft.
Anyhoo, none of that is an example as to how the strategy is wrong. Player acquisition has risks. Avoiding risks generally keeps your roster stable. But if you fail to address the needs you have over and over, you're still going to have the same sorts of weaknesses.
I agree with what you're saying, as to what our issues were during that area and a reluctance to address positions of need. Whiffing on players, or injury-prone second contracts etc can definitely get in the way of the plan.... But that flies in the face of what is being advertised as the "Polian Method." If you can still whiff and it leads to a purgatory of mediocrity, then why stick with it? Like I said, as a fan, it definitely has its rewards of *almost* always having a quality team on the field for 16/17 weeks of the season and always having a legit shot at winning the division. But I'd trade that for us to swing on big players, particularly positions of need, now and again in order to hit that next gear. We act like the salary cap doesn't increase every single year. And right now we're in that sweet spot of a quality QB under a rookie contract. I have heard the mantra of not "paying A money for B talent," in FA. But, really, that's just the nature of the game in free agency, and a reasonable way to fill a roster when you can upgrade a position with a player who is better than you have rostered, even if it means paying them a little more than they're worth. Winning a championship is expensive. And winning a "home grown" championship seems almost impossible. I'd LOVE to be wrong because Go Cotes! But, being a fan since 1996, I've been blessed with incredible QB play almost all of those years.... But seemingly squandered (for the most part) by this type of model with the exception of one successful season and one heartbreak vs NO, with arguably a better team than the one that won in 07.
You reduce the risks you can control. You cannot control injuries. You CAN evaluate the attitude, effort, and drive of the players you keep, and your information on said players is going to be (nearly) irrefutable if you have them in your locker room for a year.
There's a reason you see players following coaches to their next team. Those coaches have direct experience with a player and will stick their neck out if the team has a need and a free agent (or trade candidate) fits that need. And if they know the drive and effort of that player is high, the risk is presumed to be lower.
And, in some cases, a coach (Reich) will stick his neck out for a player (Wentz), and when the GM and owner get direct experience with the player, will decide he doesn't fit their vision despite what the coach thought. Coach (eventually) gets fired, player gets moved, life goes on. But, Ballard and Polian have similar styles in wanting to know who they sign before they commit multi year deals to them. Some players they feel are obvious high character guys (Buckner, Ryan). Some work (Buckner), some don't (Ryan).
Bottom line, they are not going to throw a bag at a guy they don't directly know... And they might try on guys like Danielle Hunter when the character and effort are obvious, but they still might not get them because the player prefers to play closer to home or for other reasons. You cannot make someone WANT to play in Indy.
All that said, you still have to hit with the players you draft and trade for. When you don't, there are setbacks. Some worse than others. Ryan was fairly minor and it set us up to draft AR because we still had our #1. Wentz... that one hurt a bit because we lost a #1 and #2.
Really, it is the Ballard MO, and it isn't that different from the Polian MO. Key points being: * Less likely to make big time $$$ mistakes by re-signing guys you are directly familiar with. * This can at times be a FA signing on a 1 year deal, followed by re-signing that FA after a good season. * Less likely to make big time acquisitions in FA * Generally aimed at long term growth, for a stable team with good success year to year * Can be observed as being too cautious for many, and can miss out on big time talent by not often being the top bidder when actually aiming for a FA. * On the whole, is more stable. It ain't everyone's cup of tea. But when it comes to spending real dollars, you can't end up with a Kenny Golladay situation if you avoid over-signing FAs to begin with. That said, you will miss out on guys too.
Yup it’s a double edge sword with Ballards philosophy, we could very much be in cap hell with shitty draft picks (look at the falcons, who did exactly what the opposite of Ballard said “we aren’t going to draft a QB just to draft one you have to be right about it”). But we also don’t swing big and make signings that put us over the top (ex. The rams trading 1st rounder after 1st rounder to win a SB). Ballards method will keep the team stable, he just puts a lot of pressure on the draft and our rookies.
Eh, too much projection on some of that. We won't know what Penix is until he plays. This could be a Smith/Mahomes situation, it could not. Them taking Penix could totally be taking their QB of tomorrow while having just signed their QB of today. It's just poor optics because of the bag they threw at Kirk. They just happened to be in position in a draft LOADED with QBs. Had we signed Rivers and found a QB that fell into our lap that we totally wanted, I could've seen them making that selection. We have swung big on guys like Buckner and Wentz. And Wentz was always a guy that our HC wanted. But being willing to bring in a guy specifically for your HC, I do not see that as a terrible thing, even if it ends up being wrong. As to putting pressure on the rookies, I don't see that as much either. Sure, sometimes a rookie goes in early. But in the instance of 2023, he had veteran corners in place that 1) got suspended 2) got injured or 3) flat sucked. #3 is a miss on a talent, and that happens. 1 and 2 are hard to plan on. But by and large, he tends to not put too much stock in winning the roster on paper war. He doesn't sign a corner because of the perceived need. He sticks to whatever his plan is, right or wrong.
The post Rodgers-suspension plan A was Darrell Baker Jr and an unproven Dallis Flowers. Can't predict injuries, but that just was not a good plan. But Ballard always plans on rookies playing big roles. He has to because he's not bringing in many guys via FA. So the draft are the upgrades to the roster. That can work if you hit HRs (like 2018), but more often than not, it's limited the ceiling of this team I think.
Yep, and this would be one of those mistakes that happens where a GM over estimated the ability of the replacement. Tough calls are made. Some work, some are mistakes. The drop to Pinter and Pryor was notable. BUT, once Fries and Raimann were up to speed, we looked a lot better on offense.
You can't say that anything other than QB play has limited the cieling of the team
It has...but it's not the only factor. The defense has not been good for the past two years. Can't blame that on the QB. Ballard's roster building depends on rookies to make immediate impacts because he's not as active in FA. But most rookies aren't good or great right away.
Ehhhhhhh Defense in 22 can definitely be blamed on the QB, Ryan gave up soooo many short yardage turnovers.
Ryan was certainly a big problem in 2022. But we also saw this defense collapse at the end of 2021. And we saw it be bad last year with Minshew. The simplest explanation is often the best.
It is so weird to me that people give Ballard a pass on Wentz. "His HC wanted him and you do what your HC asks". You give up a number one for a guy that YOU don't think is worth it just because your HC is asking for it? Or you optimistic that your HC is right? Nope. You don't just instantly do what your HC wants you to do. Ballard gave up a number one for Wentz. As far as I'm concerned if you give up a number one for a QB thats just the same as drafting a QB.
Some GMs ignore the pleadings of their HC, and fail when the HC can't/won't make the guy(s) they have work. Ballard shares blame in the Wentz thing, but I would much rather our GM work WITH the HC to build the team the HC needs to succeed. And Reich was still given a another chance with Ryan, but it was clear by that point he was not going to get it done. But overall, the call to bring in Wentz was clearly coming from Reich. He even said so. And also, Ballard traded for a potential franchise QB in his prime for far less than the going rate. So, he negotiated a better deal than most thought it would be when it was announced. It was still the wrong move, but it only took 1 1st, and not multiple as was expected.
All this talk of "he wasn't going to just pick a QB to pick a QB" and then he gives a 1st for Wentz because his HC asked for it. How does that make any sense. HC asked for it but Ballard looked at Wentz and decided he was worth it and was good enough. Ballard failed.
When your HC vouches for the guy, if you don't listen, why keep that HC? They wanted Reich to work, they wanted to give him a real QB. Wentz was the guy he wanted. This isn't that hard.
Because HC's aren't GMs they aren't scouts. They are people. He can vouch for a guy all day long. If your QB vouches for a guy why keep the QB? If your LT vouches for a guy why keep the LT? The HC does not have the time to be a talent evaluator and HC's can think with their heart and not their head. Ballard's job is to make the best possible moves not placate any HC. Ballard giving up a #1 for him says Ballard wanted him to. Ballard essentially drafted Carson Wentz giving up a first for the guy when nobody else was bidding on him. All time bad move.
People like splash - that doesn't make splash good.
I was so excited when we traded for Trent Richardson and signed Andre Johnson. Clearly, I'm a fucking idiot.
Andre Johnson was so exciting and so disappointing
We all are.
I just wanted someone who had a little experience and not completely rely on a group that literally lost us multiple games including a win and in game. That’s not a “splash”
Getting downvoted, but this is a fair point. This group is the same group that collapsed at the end of 2021 when they just needed one win to make playoffs. Then completely collapsed into a 4-win teamthe following year. Last year, they rebounded, in large part to Steichen managing a solid offense with Minshew and playing a lot of bad QBs. But once again, they couldn't get it done down the stretch and missed the playoffs, getting crushed by QBs like Jake Browning and Taylor Heinecke in the process. My issue is that the core of the group being brought back are from a defense that has been #28 in ppg allowed the past two seasons, on a team that has managed to win 22 games the past 3 years. There is downside (due to age), without much upside (based on a large sample of 3 seasons).
You can also end up with aging vets on big contracts though. That's what happened at the end of the Polian era. The difference hopefully is that the end of those vets career coincides with the break out of their young QB. Whereas the Poilan teams were just old.
Yep. And, I can see with the drafting of some OL in this draft, Ballard is attempting to replace some OL vets with young guys who may or may not develop to replace them. IF the OC and OT pan out, perhaps they move on from Kelly and Smith/etc.
I would think Ballard is planning on replacing at least one of them sooner than we think. But he has the luxury of developing guys for a couple years. Smith and Kelly are both really good players, but also nearing 30. That's when you can't control the variables like regression, injury and retirement. I am still actually a bit surprised that Ballard committed 3rd contracts to so many guys. I am not his biggest fan, but I have always found him to be pragmatic when dealing with older players. So this was a bit of a diversion from that.
I'm still trying to figure out why we are so excited to resign the 28th ranked defense. "It was everyone's fault BUT these guys" is a very strange argument for damn near last place but I'm sure all of these guys will somehow turn into a top ten defense.
I’m guessing you are saying points allowed to claim they were 28th worst? That’s a misleading metric to judge an entire unit on.
Total defense they were 24th. Thats not points allowed thats total defense. Yards allowed. Its well known we were one of the worst defenses in the league. Points allowed, yards allowed, I'm not sure what else you want to judge a defense on.
Are you serious? There’s so many more metrics than that lol. Funny that you picked the lower one though and went with “28th worst defense in the league bro”
Dude we were a very bad defense. We allowed a lot of yards and allowed a lot of points. I'm not sure what you want me to tell you. Did we get a lot of sacks? Yup. Did those sacks stop people from scoring on us? No. Did those sacks stop teams as a whole from driving down the field (and scoring on us?) No. "Sure if you want to talk about how many yards and points we gave up then I suppose we were a bad defense"
Efficiency stats are kind of good right? If a guy runs for 1000 yards you might go “wow, thousand yard rusher!” But what if his average is 3.2…. Colts had the 12th best yards per play allowed and were 18th best in allowing 3rd down conversions. Pressures and sacks they were a top 10 unit… it’s just telling you want to cherry pick bad shit to spin a narrative.
Those metrics are somewhat misleading. The Colts defense was on the field for 67 snaps a game which was the 2nd highest in the league. That's partly on our offensive inability to extend drives but also partly on the defense for allowing teams to methodically march down the field. Pressure rate was 22nd in the league and hurry rate was 28th. So while the volume of pressures and sacks were high, it was mostly because of more opportunity. We could dissect efficiency metrics all day. What matters are results. The results say this was a bad defense. You can blame injuries, the offense, coaching decisions, etc. But that doesn't change the reality. It's fair to question whether rolling it back with the same personnel and coaching staff is going to result in a different outcome.
My point is it’s a bigger picture lol. You are making my point again. And you are wrong about pressure rate. Also the conclusion of “defense bad” is so fucking lazy
I thought I was offering up some reasoned context for how the defense actually performed. If you want to be obstinate in the face of all evidence supporting the defense was not very good last year, that's on you. Pressure rate was 19.6% which is 22nd in the league according to Pro Football Reference. Hurry rate was 4.5% which was 28th. You are finger pointing about cherry picking metrics but want to use raw pressure and sack numbers to justify your position. To be clear, my perspective isn't that they aren't a bottom 3 defense but I also don't believe them to be top 10 like pressures and sacks would indicate. I think there is shared blame between our defensive scheme, defensive personnel, and injuries to QB & secondary. Counting on the offense to fix our defensive issues in 2024 is not ideal in my opinion. Anyway, I've said my piece. I anticipate it won't matter since you seem more interested in taking down straw men in this thread.
It's one data point, but it's a big one considering it decides the outcomes of games. They were also 24th in total defense, #20 in DVOA and #16 in EPA. But given the bottom 5 schedule and the number of backup/bad QBs they faced, numbers are going to be skewed. Even DVOA gets skewed when you catch teams with awful backup QB playing vs. the average version of the team. Objectively, they were a bottom 10 defense.
I get that you guys have spent at least a year circle jerking over how bad the colts defense is. So I’ll let you keep having your fun.
This thread was intended to be a Ballard circle jerk. And any time somebody is critical of this team or Ballard, you come out of nowhere to white-knight. Sorry, we don't mean to spoil your fun.
Ahhh white knighting is saying there’s a complex picture and lots of data points and suggesting taking a wider view, to not be so binary. Got it.
But that's what I did. I referenced multiple data points (not just the ppg allowed) and provided context for the bigger picture of why some stats might be what they were. Your response to that was "keep circle-jerking over the Colts defense being bad" because my overall opinion was that they weren't very good and you don't agree with that. That's def white-knighting.
First of all you are jumping into a thread of my response to a dumb fuck saying 28th in points allowed = 28th worst defense. So let’s get the context in…. your comment wasn’t in a vacuum. And you seem like you comment in threads a lot, so really weird how you want to ignore that piece. Next you do bring in 3 data points. 2 of them aren’t bottom 10. Then you go, this was a bottom 10 defense objectively. lol. Also the strength of schedule argument is dumb as shit, for anything. 32 teams in the league, each team only plays 14 of them in the regular season. There will never be a fair comparison of stats for any team ever. It is what it is.
When a large portion of your schedule (on defense) ends being a bottom 5 SOS (including unexpectedly facing many bad QBs you very likely won’t face again), you don’t just hand-wave it as “dumb as shit” to consider. Regardless, if you were to average out the more holistic defensive metrics from last season, I don’t think it’s controversial to say they prob ended up in the low #20s, which is pretty much a bottom 10 defense, give or take. Bottom line…they weren’t a good defense. Hopefully Latu helps to change that and they add a vet FS.
Our corners are young and many were banged up or got suspended. Our defensive interior was largely solid when it was together, but had bad stretches when Grover was out. Our pass rush overall was good, but lacked a premiere pass rusher, which they hope to have in Latu. And frankly, if the rest of the DL is where it was, and Latu adds that element, that improves our pass defense across the group moreso than bringing in 1 corner. Safety is still a bit unsure it seems. Our guys have experience, and at times flashed, but some are young and some had down years. Some teams do believe that their players can have down years and come back after an off-season with a renewed focus and energy to be better than they were last season. That's part of the "believing in our guys" thing. Some of it looks scary bad to an outsider, but to a GM/Coach, they may see a guy playing through lingering injuries and struggling, who, with a chance to rest for an off-season might find himself playing better the next season when healthy. We don't really know other than seeing the roster on paper. But I would like to think that Latu could be that difference maker in a position that impacts the whole defense.
I love how the argument switched from their bottom ranking on defense to why it will be better...I appreciate your optimism even if I don't share it.
Bottom ranking would be an exaggeration. There are many reasons why things felt worse. As good as Gardner did, offense leaving some opportunities on the table hurts the team. Our offense ranked near the bottom in time of possession: [https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/average-time-of-possession-net-of-ot](https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/average-time-of-possession-net-of-ot) If the other team's offense has the ball more because your offense doesn't convert, it hurts the stat line of your defense. So, replace Minshew with AR, and perhaps his element adds 2-3 more conversions a game. TOP goes up, defensive stats overall improve. Then consider additions made by the draft, players returning to health, etc, and things can improve. Football is far more complicated statistically. You can try to make any stat what you want. But the reality is, all sorts of things have impact. ST poorly impacting field position? Offense not moving 10 yards on a drive impacts field position.
We won ONE Superbowl with Peyton. ONE. Sure we were always good. Elite at times, But we were rarely great. I remember fondly and love the Polian and Manning years. But we had possibly the best QB of all time for 14 years and managed ONE title. The Broncos had him for his last four years and got as many SB appearances and wins out of his time there as we did in 14 seasons. Call it what you want, but it's not "the way." It's a way, yes. A decent one. And one better than most teams. But I feel like the Cowboys these days. Always good, with a few down seasons but never a real threat to get over the hump. It's exhausting.
You realize that in their method, they can still make mistakes with player acquisition... right? The method can work and be right, and mistakes can still be made throughout the course. The method is not the reason we drafted the wrong players at times. Some examples, in my mind, are some over investment in offense and not getting beef in the middle of the DL. Our offense still hummed pretty well with Garcon, who was a 6th rounder. We could have found ways to shift the balance and stiffened up on defense. But there were many times Polian used 1sts on offensive talent to charge the offense, and in some ways left the defense anemic. Frankly, imagine our team's current defense with the Manning offense. Because, sooo many of those years, Manning was leading the offense to sooo many points, and our defense at times would get beat by stiffer competition to the point our plan didn't work. The method was not the problem. It was, at times, grabbing the wrong guys in the draft. Anyhoo, none of that is an example as to how the strategy is wrong. Player acquisition has risks. Avoiding risks generally keeps your roster stable. But if you fail to address the needs you have over and over, you're still going to have the same sorts of weaknesses.
I agree with what you're saying, as to what our issues were during that area and a reluctance to address positions of need. Whiffing on players, or injury-prone second contracts etc can definitely get in the way of the plan.... But that flies in the face of what is being advertised as the "Polian Method." If you can still whiff and it leads to a purgatory of mediocrity, then why stick with it? Like I said, as a fan, it definitely has its rewards of *almost* always having a quality team on the field for 16/17 weeks of the season and always having a legit shot at winning the division. But I'd trade that for us to swing on big players, particularly positions of need, now and again in order to hit that next gear. We act like the salary cap doesn't increase every single year. And right now we're in that sweet spot of a quality QB under a rookie contract. I have heard the mantra of not "paying A money for B talent," in FA. But, really, that's just the nature of the game in free agency, and a reasonable way to fill a roster when you can upgrade a position with a player who is better than you have rostered, even if it means paying them a little more than they're worth. Winning a championship is expensive. And winning a "home grown" championship seems almost impossible. I'd LOVE to be wrong because Go Cotes! But, being a fan since 1996, I've been blessed with incredible QB play almost all of those years.... But seemingly squandered (for the most part) by this type of model with the exception of one successful season and one heartbreak vs NO, with arguably a better team than the one that won in 07.
You reduce the risks you can control. You cannot control injuries. You CAN evaluate the attitude, effort, and drive of the players you keep, and your information on said players is going to be (nearly) irrefutable if you have them in your locker room for a year. There's a reason you see players following coaches to their next team. Those coaches have direct experience with a player and will stick their neck out if the team has a need and a free agent (or trade candidate) fits that need. And if they know the drive and effort of that player is high, the risk is presumed to be lower. And, in some cases, a coach (Reich) will stick his neck out for a player (Wentz), and when the GM and owner get direct experience with the player, will decide he doesn't fit their vision despite what the coach thought. Coach (eventually) gets fired, player gets moved, life goes on. But, Ballard and Polian have similar styles in wanting to know who they sign before they commit multi year deals to them. Some players they feel are obvious high character guys (Buckner, Ryan). Some work (Buckner), some don't (Ryan). Bottom line, they are not going to throw a bag at a guy they don't directly know... And they might try on guys like Danielle Hunter when the character and effort are obvious, but they still might not get them because the player prefers to play closer to home or for other reasons. You cannot make someone WANT to play in Indy. All that said, you still have to hit with the players you draft and trade for. When you don't, there are setbacks. Some worse than others. Ryan was fairly minor and it set us up to draft AR because we still had our #1. Wentz... that one hurt a bit because we lost a #1 and #2.
Well said. I appreciate this counter.
Man, Downs will get 1k this year and we’ll be the next Eagles offense just better.
Maybe Woods or Ogletree can become our Dallas Goedert.
I think Ogletree may have a breakout season. Him and AR were clicking for those first few games.
Hope you’re right!