Superman

The judge will be hearing a motion to set aside the jury verdict, which apparently is allowed in a case like this. That means he could invalidate the verdict if he sees fit. It's worth noting that the judge was highly critical of the plaintiff's case and the way they chose to argue it. I don't know if that means anything, but it's interesting. It's also interesting that the NFL's appeal would go to the US Ninth Circuit court, which is the same court that reinstated this case after it had been previously dismissed.

Definitely. He said the same things last year that he said this year in defending AD. He just didn't name the player he was talking about. I think QBs were the topic, so it could have applied to Levis or Stroud, but it was obvious he was talking about Stroud. This year, some agencies advised their clients not to take the S2 test. That's about all I remember about it. I think the cognitive testing process has some image rehab to do, and if they can keep scores and results out of the public sphere, that's a good start for them.

Go to about the 23 minute mark if you want to hear. Below is from the Youtube transcript: one of the things I struggle with is spend so much time tearing down 23:29 19 20 21 year old kids with unnamed sources in the media that just I mean 23:36 why like wh why just I don't understand where the benefit is in that and if I 23:45 think if you go back in history and you look at the guy some of the guys that have been ripped apart and tore down um 23:51 some of them have been really successful I look I went off the year before about CJ stra with CJ and people were killing 23:58 killing him over a over over a test and I mean he he debunked that pretty 24:06 quickly

He joined the team as an intern in 1981. So yeah, more than 40 years with the team. How long he will stay, I have no idea. He might retire tomorrow... I'm not sure how old he is, seems like he'd be a few years older than Irsay, so maybe close to 70? He seems to be very important to Irsay, for obvious reasons. He's the one who made the 911 call when Irsay was hospitalized a few months ago. He was standing at Irsay's side when he made his comments about Dan Snyder. He's been involved in all the big hires for decades, including Steichen a year ago. I brought Ward up in response to the idea that Irsay might not be up for an exhaustive executive search, and that maybe the Irsay daughters aren't 'ready' to fill that role if he has to take a step back. In that scenario, if that were happening in the next year or two -- which seems to be the timeline on which people want Ballard to be evaluated -- I think Ward would still be involved, and would help bridge any gap that might exist. Personally, I don't know if any of that is relevant. We might not be sure that the daughters are ready, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they are. At least two of them seem to be involved in the day to day, and Carlie especially seems to be preparing for a big role in the operation. She was the main point person back in 2014 when Irsay was in rehab and then suspended. She walks the sidelines on gameday with a walkie and a clipboard, she sits on league committees, and she was heavily involved in the coaching search last year. So in the event Jim has to take a step back -- which is an understandable concern, but also seems premature right now -- I would assume that Carlie would be the new CEO/chair. And even if that happened tomorrow, I don't think that would be the end of the world.

I just listened. You won't really hear anything new. Ballard said they think Richardson is fine, even though he got shut down at the end of minicamp. I hope he's right. He also acknowledged that he was talking about CJ Stroud after last year's draft, which we already knew. Everything else has been covered already, I think. Nothing wrong with the interview, but for those of us who follow the team pretty closely, it's all repeat stuff.

I'm not necessarily bothered by it. I was beginning to wonder how long the cycle would continue, though. Like you said, hopefully this whole thing is rendered moot this upcoming season.

Yeah I read it, I think I get it. I know it's the offseason and there's little to talk about. It just seems like a lot of dogmatic discussion about a hypothetical outcome which hinges on other hypothetical outcomes, especially with how convinced people seem to be about the way these hypotheticals would/should play out. JMO.

Pete Ward would be very involved. I have to admit, I don't understand this conversation. First, Ballard will be the GM for the foreseeable future. Long enough for Steichen to be evaluated fairly, which probably coincides with Richardson's development. And it's my hope that they all succeed together. Second, I don't think Irsay or whoever is making decisions in the future would hold back from replacing a GM because they're trying to avoid the inconvenience of replacing him or his staff. When Grigson was hired, it took him over a year to rework his staff, culminating in the hiring of Jimmy Raye. When Ballard was hired, he kept Jimmy Raye and Grigson's staff through his first draft, and then hired his own staff that summer. And of course, he didn't hire a new HC until the following season. These transitions required a lot of work and took some time, but that's what needed to happen. If Ballard got fired, the Colts would hire whoever they think is best to replace him, whether it's an internal candidate or someone else. I think an external candidate would be most likely, but I don't think guys like Dodds and Brown would be excluded from consideration. Whoever they'd hire would then be allowed to re-staff the front office as they see fit. It might not happen right away, but the new GM would be given the chance to succeed. Ultimately, I still find it mind boggling that Ballard's future is so hotly debated. I understood this as the team was falling apart in 2022. Since then, I think it's clear that Ballard was allowed to reset the operation, and will be here at least long enough for the new HC and QB to be established and evaluated. And if they all succeed, like everyone should hope, he'll probably be here even longer.

Not knocking Brady, what you say is true. But that first SB vs the Rams, he was a non-factor all game long, and then they get the FG drive at the end. Meanwhile, the defense holds the greatest show on turf to 17 points, using a brilliant gameplan to keep Marshall Faulk bottled up. And of course, Brady didn't even finish the AFCCG that year; he got knocked out in the second quarter, Drew Bledsoe came back in, and the defense and special teams did what they had been doing all year, including putting the game away in the 4th quarter with a timely FG and multiple turnovers. But Brady gets credited because he led a nice FG drive in the SB... I don't think it's arguable that the defense was the main engine of the early Patriots' success, especially in 2001. Yeah, Brady did a nice job in some big moments, but those tend to overshadow just how important the coaching and defense were in those early years. Fast-forward to 2020, when Brady is exponentially better as a player, the rules have been adjusted in a way that makes it harder to dominate a game defensively, the game is generally more wide open making it harder for LBs and RBs to impact the game -- compared to the early 2000s when guys like Bruschi and McGinest were so vital to the Pats defense, etc. At that point, yeah, Brady was the backbone of the Patriots, and when he left, there was a gaping hole that could not be filled by Cam Newton and Mac Jones. But that doesn't mean that Brady was more important to the Patriots success than Belichick, especially not as it relates to their early success.

https://sports.yahoo.com/anthony-richardsons-film-albeit-limited-doesnt-lie-theres-supernova-talent-and-plays-waiting-for-the-colts-061110065.html This is an excellent piece on Richardson's skill. Here's a critical snippet:

Kind of an extreme example, but Jim Irsay specifically praising Bryce Young last year could qualify. In general though, if a team is trying to throw off the scent by floating positive information about other players, that seems harmless. It's different if a team is trashing a player to try to get him to drop into their range, and I don't think that's something that actually happens. If it did, I think that would be highly inappropriate, and I think a good reporter would look back and recognize that their source was using them, and think twice about trusting that source again. So I think this is way more common than what McGinn did. And I don't think people ignore it, unless it's something they don't want to hear. Most sports reports include some version of 'I've been told...' without naming or directly quoting a source. A lot of those are just fact-based, black/white reports, but that often happens with more opinion-based or viewpoint-based reporting as well. I don't know if anyone necessarily likes those reports, but I do think we consume them, and are generally influenced by them. Yeah, the substantiated/analytical stuff is way more valuable than a report discussion a potential character issue, but if it has a legitimate foundation -- AD Mitchell does have diabetes, it can be difficult for someone with that condition to control their mood and energy levels -- then I think it should be considered. Ultimately, I know the quality of information I have access to is nowhere near what the teams are getting, so I don't worry too much about it. Yeah, I fully agree. Ballard faced the media when the Okereke story came out, and it was obvious the team had done their homework. He was firm when asked about Ogletree coming back. The Colts are thorough. Doesn't mean nothing can go wrong once they draft the guy, but I'm confident they've checked all their boxes. And definitely, I think Ballard 100% meant everything he said, and I have no problem with him saying it. But, I think there's a difference between McGinn's report, and the narrative that came later. I think the report was based on anonymous insights, and the narrative was based on sensational headlines. And I'd say Ballard's comments apply more to the narrative than to the report.

Does the same dynamic and conflict exist when it's a positive report, based on unnamed sources? What if a reporter just generalizes this information, without offering quotes? 'People I've talked to have concerns about this player's maturity...' Is the standard the same in that case? I think if media didn't share these anonymous insights, the stuff we love to consume during draft season would dry up, and we'd be in the dark. There's a voracious appetite for this kind of information. That doesn't mean the media has no responsibility and shouldn't be held to some kind of standard, but I think your standard is more strict than it needs to be. JMO. To the bolded, I think that's the job of the scouts, and it's one of the reasons there's a HUGE difference between watching video, and actually scouting. That's why teams who have access to film and independent scouting reports still pay their own scouts to go into the schools, talk to the coaches, talk to family and friends, etc., and write up in-depth reports on players that they'll likely never draft. I'm confident the Colts got sufficient answers to those questions, which is why I'm not concerned about it. If the Colts didn't have a reputation for being so thorough with stuff like this, I might feel differently.

Got it. But what do you think should be done about this?

I don't necessarily disagree. I do think there's a double standard, though. When it's a positive report about a player we like, it's fine. When it's a negative report about a player we don't like, it's validating. We eat all of that up, all through draft season, no problem. But when it's a negative report about player we like, now the practice is unfair. It's a shrug for me all the way around, though. If it's a topic I care about, I'll dig and try to get past the surface, and make a determination on how I feel about the substance of the reports. What do you mean?

I mostly agree. I think there might be teams that had him highly graded, but went in a different direction. The first round was wacky. And maybe for some of those teams, it was a coin flip between AD and another player, and maybe the concerns about maturity were the deciding factor. There are other teams -- like the Colts, IMO -- that generally don't value WR as a first round position, which is not necessarily a reflection of the individual player. Maybe the Colts would have taken one of the top three guys if they were in range, because they're that good, but generally, that's not how the Colts handle the position. Your other thoughts are definitely valid as well. It's not like he's the perfect physical prospect, he didn't have outstanding college production, some of the advanced stuff doesn't look great, etc. I don't think he's the 11th best WR prospect in this class, there are several players I think he should have gone ahead of. But it's not like he's a top five prospect who dropped to the middle of the second round. The Colts don't see it that way either, otherwise they wouldn't have traded back to #52. Speaking of top five prospects dropping, there were some unsourced rumors about Malik Nabers' character before the draft; he still got drafted where everyone expected him to be drafted. So yeah, I don't think these reports torpedoed AD's draft stock. Maybe the character concerns played a role, but I don't think these reports are the source of those concerns; I think it's the other way around.