Huh? I never said that they were one of the best teams under Grigson. And that's not same thing as agreeing they weren't.
Obviously you've gotten your circuits in a loop because of the thought that Ballard cannot separate from Grison is any of the ways you have measured so far.
How about this as a standard? Instead of gauging Ballard's roster by assuming what he would do with Luck (which has already been accomplished), why not simply see what he does without Luck?
You know, reality
Yeah that’s not what I said at all about the hold overs. Ill say it again the Colts won under Grigson solely because of Luck, TY, and the holdovers. Ballards teams have benefited from the hold overs but he’s also found other good players over multiple drafts that have expanded the talent beyond the hold overs.
Also if you agree that the Colts weren’t one of the best teams under Grigson then you also agree with me that the Colts were not “already there” under Grigson about my original point about Ballard. Again, my point to you was thanks to Ballard’s drafting if the Colts still had luck they would be one of if not the best teams in the league.
They don’t have him so they aren’t but that doesn’t change the fact that Ballard has done a very good job finding talent in the draft since he’s been here.
Me?, I'm turning it into a Ballard vs Grigson? I didn't evaluate Grigson. I mentioned his name to lift up the standard that was being applied to Ballard. That's not a comparison of the competence of GMs. Its about the standard being used to evaluate the competence of Ballard.
Not sure what you're getting into a twist about.