Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Chris Ballard open minded with character concerns


Luck 4 president

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

52 minutes ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

There are several stories that quoted the incident report from police, including the EXACT quote I had listed from the story I posted. The words "according to the incident report" arent definitive enough for you? 

It literally says "According to the attendant’s report"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Shive said:

It literally says "According to the attendant’s report"

Which in those exact words can be taken 2 ways, yes. But when you have other stories that clearly refer to incident reports that say the exact same thing you would think they are referring to the same report.

 But lets for a moment assume you are right, and this is just a report that the attendant wrote up. She was the one who reported him to police. She would have had to bring in that report as evidence (as it would be an official incident report for her company, and would have to be admitted as evidence). She would be looking at the same falsifying report charges, if not obstruction of justice or perjury charges for that making up a piece of evidence.

 

Same question applies. Why would she risk a lengthy prison sentence simply to power trip some kid?

 

The more likely scenario is that the kid who is taking anger management counseling had a setback and reacted poorly. 

 

But you are free to believe whatever you want. Im done talking about this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2017 at 4:19 PM, COLTS449 said:

I've believed this all along. And I mean not only, considering the state of our roster do we need to take advantage of guys like Mixon and Lewis falling the 3-4 range, but we need some bad boys. We need some loud mouths that tount the crowd and opponents non stop like a Suggs or Sherman. Or guys like Burfict, Talib, Jenkins, Pacman, etc. Guys who come straight outta the geto. Guys like Bernard Pollard who played angry and seem like they actually try to take players out. We need that. I don't want a bunch of good guys. I want guys who'd rather kill somebody than to lose a game, guys who only care about winning, etc. We were always taught winning is EVERYTHING!!! BUT....Not saying Mixon and Lewis are like this. All they've done is hit women like some scumbags, but they'll fall down the board because of that. And I'd MUCH rather have a full of scumbags who can ball that mediocrity. We can come out of this draft and drastically improve our team right away IMO. But back to Mixon and Lewis. They're both late 1st-early 2nd round picks. When you can get a talent like that in the 2-3-4 you gotta take it. I mean hell if we got Lewis and Mixon in the 3rd and 4th it's be like 3 1st rounders, maybe 4 depending on what we do in the 2nd.

I wouldn't get that excited about this approach, how well does it work for the Bengals? You can have passion for winning without having a rap sheet. I don't know about the line "straight outta the geto/" that made me groan, unless you have lived in a situation like this it's hard to give this status as a key to winning. yes, If someone rose up from a hostile environment and became a success their mental strength should be able to handle adversity well, but, that type of atmosphere can scar you mentally too. I agree I want future Colts who are not hugging the opponent after a loss, but how many guys are like this in the NFL in 2017? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, horseshoepower said:

I wouldn't get that excited about this approach, how well does it work for the Bengals? You can have passion for winning without having a rap sheet. I don't know about the line "straight outta the geto/" that made me groan, unless you have lived in a situation like this it's hard to give this status as a key to winning. yes, If someone rose up from a hostile environment and became a success their mental strength should be able to handle adversity well, but, that type of atmosphere can scar you mentally too. I agree I want future Colts who are not hugging the opponent after a loss, but how many guys are like this in the NFL in 2017? 

 

It's amazing to me how people ignore the issues and distractions that players like that often cause for their own teams, especially the team that drafts them. Pacman almost got kicked out of the league; the Titans got rid of him after two seasons. Burfict was suspended three games. Pollard has bounced around the league (and was never anything other than a big hitter, honestly).

 

And then there are the disaster stories, like Chris Henry. 

 

And before you get to the disaster stories, there are players like Aldon Smith, Josh Gordon... Prince Shembo was a wasted pick for the Falcons. Letroy Guion was a wasted pick for the Vikings, and is suspended again for the second time in two years. How many more examples are there? 

 

So often, players who have off the field issues in college wind up having off the field issues in the NFL. It's unrealistic to suggest that players with troubled pasts just wind up being tough-minded, hard nosed players on the field, with no negative impact on the team. Only people who have no personal accountability for these decisions think that way. The actual decision makers agonize over taking these risks, and still get burned most of the time. 

 

Suggs and Sherman don't belong in the conversation. They had no character issues prior to the NFL, that I know of, and haven't been in trouble since. They are actually proof that you don't have to draft players who have been in trouble to get the tough-minded, hard nosed player on the field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

It's amazing to me how people ignore the issues and distractions that players like that often cause for their own teams, especially the team that drafts them. Pacman almost got kicked out of the league; the Titans got rid of him after two seasons. Burfict was suspended three games. Pollard has bounced around the league (and was never anything other than a big hitter, honestly).

 

And then there are the disaster stories, like Chris Henry. 

 

And before you get to the disaster stories, there are players like Aldon Smith, Josh Gordon... Prince Shembo was a wasted pick for the Falcons. Letroy Guion was a wasted pick for the Vikings, and is suspended again for the second time in two years. How many more examples are there? 

 

So often, players who have off the field issues in college wind up having off the field issues in the NFL. It's unrealistic to suggest that players with troubled pasts just wind up being tough-minded, hard nosed players on the field, with no negative impact on the team. Only people who have no personal accountability for these decisions think that way. The actual decision makers agonize over taking these risks, and still get burned most of the time. 

 

Suggs and Sherman don't belong in the conversation. They had no character issues prior to the NFL, that I know of, and haven't been in trouble since. They are actually proof that you don't have to draft players who have been in trouble to get the tough-minded, hard nosed player on the field. 

For some reason,  the sketchy app won't let me like this post.     Hopefully we draft a better web master in the 7th round

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2017 at 4:11 PM, Superman said:

 

It's amazing to me how people ignore the issues and distractions that players like that often cause for their own teams, especially the team that drafts them. Pacman almost got kicked out of the league; the Titans got rid of him after two seasons. Burfict was suspended three games. Pollard has bounced around the league (and was never anything other than a big hitter, honestly).

 

And then there are the disaster stories, like Chris Henry. 

 

And before you get to the disaster stories, there are players like Aldon Smith, Josh Gordon... Prince Shembo was a wasted pick for the Falcons. Letroy Guion was a wasted pick for the Vikings, and is suspended again for the second time in two years. How many more examples are there? 

 

So often, players who have off the field issues in college wind up having off the field issues in the NFL. It's unrealistic to suggest that players with troubled pasts just wind up being tough-minded, hard nosed players on the field, with no negative impact on the team. Only people who have no personal accountability for these decisions think that way. The actual decision makers agonize over taking these risks, and still get burned most of the time. 

 

Suggs and Sherman don't belong in the conversation. They had no character issues prior to the NFL, that I know of, and haven't been in trouble since. They are actually proof that you don't have to draft players who have been in trouble to get the tough-minded, hard nosed player on the field. 

 

... but that was my point earlier.... sort of.  

 

Giving second chances often lead to wishing you had not done so.  I don't mean  to call you out, but I am saying that it can't be both ways.... meaning give second chances knowing that you are likely to get burned.  No one person with spending authority, particularly in a new position, spending millions potentially, on a diminishing asset to start with, wants to get burned immediately by making a bad decision knowing what you just said.  Obviously Mixon fits the description.

 

I suppose it really boils down to if whomever is in charge really wants to take the reward vs risk chance and which weighs heaver in their judgement.  

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BR-549 said:

 

... but that was my point earlier.... sort of.  

 

Giving second chances often lead to wishing you had not done so.  I don't mean  to call you out, but I am saying that it can't be both ways.... meaning give second chances knowing that you are likely to get burned.  No one person with spending authority, particularly in a new position, spending millions potentially, on a diminishing asset to start with, wants to get burned immediately by making a bad decision knowing what you just said.  Obviously Mixon fits the description.

 

I suppose it really boils down to if whomever is in charge really wants to take the reward vs risk chance and which weighs heaver in their judgement.  

 

Thoughts?

 

I'm making two separate points. 

 

1) In my responses to you, I was mostly arguing against the extreme that says 'his actions were awful, I don't want him in the NFL ever.' That's not really what you were saying, but my argument is just that I don't think it's fair to blacklist someone over something they did several years ago, especially if they've shown that they've grown and have stayed out of trouble since then. That's not really an endorsement of Mixon, particularly. I do think it makes sense to do a case by case evaluation, and there will be some players that a team won't want to touch, and some on which they'd take the risk.

 

2) In my latest response, I'm mostly arguing against a different extreme that says you have to add players with questionable character to have a tough football team. There's also the idea that you just have to take a chance, and as long as it's not a first rounder you'll be okay, but that's coming from people whose jobs aren't on the line with these decisions.

 

And there are a hundred gradients in between, and a hundred variables to consider. I'm not offering hard and fast rules, just saying don't write them off entirely, but don't go drafting a bunch of character-challenged players under the assumption that they'll be roughnecks on the field but solid pros off the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...