DougDew

IMO, expressing sympathy is what I do personally, either phone call, face to face, or card. Nobody else will ever see it. Doing it over a public internet has too much of a "hey everybody, look how much I care" feel to it for me to worry too much about criticism over not expressing it.

WTH? Does he read the forums? Its not in my nature to grandstand my sympathy. Seems like an appropriate thread to discuss transition of ownership.

Its why I asked what the daughters true allegiance is to Indy or to professional football in general. I have no idea. None. Is it unreasonable to question if the daughters are actually committed to continuing ownership of the Colts just because they say so as long as daddy is still alive?

I think its about geography and lines on a map/population. The Colts were always squeezed in between the CHI/DET/CIN markets. A change in ownership from Jimmy to the daughters seems like an opportunity for the NFL to make a play. The daughters can cash out of the Colts all together after dad dies, but would never elude to such a thing when he's still listening. The NFL cares about having the biggest markets possible and not so much about who any specific owner is.

Well said.

I was thinking the daughter sells and the team moves to Mexico City or London. Would be more of an NFL push down/pressure than the Irsay's taking the initiative. Jimmy could swat down that pressure easily. Not sure that the NFL wouldn't try a pressure tactic on the daughters.

Does anybody know what his daughter's allegiances/ties to the Indy area are? I know she was probably raised here, but rich folks have a way of making many places their home...so they end up not having just one. Jim was committed to keeping the Colts in Indy, in part because he was part of the move to Indy in the first place...at least witnessed it and understood the motivations. The next generation of Irsay's may not have the same emotional ties to the situation and would be more open to any pressure the NFL might put on wanting other markets filled with an NFL team.

IIRC, that was the spring when Ballard also signed Funchess to a one year deal to play big body X opposite TY, and slot was the bigger need at the time of the draft. That put the focus on a slot candidate like PC over outside WR candidates like Brown (and Lockett or Deebo?). And Metcalf was a one-note player that did the same thing TY did, so he didn't really advance the versatility of the talent pool.. The alignment of skills and needs pointed to a slot WR, and PC was probably the #1 slot receiver on the board at 59 if not the entire second round. So if the strategy was a short term fix of a need to make a playoff window, the PC pick makes sense But some here, including me, wanted a more long term solution opposite TY, so we advocated for Brown (and was it Lockett? or Deebo?). Ballard needed to pick what direction the team should go and apparently sided with his HC who...because he's a HC...usually has a win now attitude. JMO.

Just sayin'. when Brown first started playing for Philly there were some things on the field that struck me as him not being the classiest guy, or a Diva with a temper. That trade was always a head scratcher, so maybe there were behind the scenes issues that the GM saw that made him not eager to hitch TENs wagon to Brown with a pricey contract, that the general fan base didn't understand. Just looking back at the situation now.

Growing a beard and dropping cool street-cred F bombs in front of a mic strikes me as someone who feels he's losing fan appeal, so he goes back to his Well of "everyman, every fan" schtick to regain some popularity he's been losing with his record. Tight weightlifter jock (non executive) shirts alone aren't cutting it anymore. But that's one of those perceptive takes others would call "bad" , LOL.

Well, this issue now puts the original trade of Brown from TEN to PHI in perspective. Personally, I saw some things that Brown did on the field that were not the classiest character indicators. Perhaps the former TEN GM thought that Brown was a bit of a perpetual complainer no matter what the circumstance. Just saying, there are personalities that always complain and are never happy or satisfied. I think Philly did well with Smith and Brown, but I don't know that either really has the top end speed....near top end...but not over the top. Which is okay for Philly because Hurts doesn't have the top end arm...and maybe Hurts' arm strength never allowed either's top end speed to shine, if they have it.. With AR, I want top end speed to compliment Pitt, but probably something better all around than AP.

Talent impacts position. Downs has the size of a traditional slot. And #1WR talented WRs typically play outside. The way I think of it is that the Z should be manned by the most talented WR....so the Z is #1WR. #2 is X, and #3 is slot, because the slot guy traditionally has some physical limitations. Personally, I think Pitt should be resigned, and as a quality X (even though he can do some other things). It makes no sense to me that if we want better performance from the WR group that there would be a plan to replace Pitt with another WR. We need a 1, so you sign a 1 and move AP to Pitts X? I don't see it. I think the plan should be to resign Pitt, then draft a #1 Z, which pushes AP down to #4...or backup Z/X. That would be the best way to improve the WR room, IMO. But Pitt has to be resigned to the value of a quality X or #2...not a #1,

#1WR definition is based upon the type of talent possessed by the WR...not really about anecdotal stats produced. If you want to have a playoff team...not just a .500 team...your most talented WR should have the ability to take the top off the defense. Of course, he can't just do that like AP or even TY, he should have the talent to also run routes and gain FDs. He should have great hands. He may have decent YAC. He may have decent contested catch ability too. Speed, route running, and great hands are fundamental to #1WR. There may only be 13 or 14 in the entire NFL, but they are probably on the playoff teams. AP has speed, but not the routes or the hands yet. Pitt has the routes and the hands, and some other things, but not the top end speed. Because of the lack of top end speed, Pitt should NEVER be thought of having #1WR talent. He's a #2 in terms of the things he can do....limited in being the home run threat (but he does it when things break correctly). The stuff about targets or catches or yards,, etc...is just anecdotal function of the team he's on and being the only real option. The Colts do not have a #1WR talent, and, they haven't been in the playoffs in a while. They should get one regardless of what they do with Pitt, IMO.

Nope, its more than that. Its the connectivity of the word steal to imply Ballard is better than all of the other GMs who did not steal him. Ballard did not know he would be top 10, he valued him the same. saw that he fell, and picked him for need, while the only reason most GMS didn't because they did not have that level of need at pick 75. 76, 77, or 78 etc. Nothing about the pick suggest Ballard was any better around the issue of Raimann. So saying that Ballard stole him is factually wrong, and just another attempt to make a narrative about Ballard positivity out of thin air. Which is okay to point out, because there are so many aggressive comments and aggressive emojis that try to portray anything non-positive about Ballard is some sort of "hate".

I think I said that early on here. I said above that maybe Robert Mathis was a steal. Polian probably valued undersized pass rushers more than others, and knew others would not pick him because of what he knew they did not value. So its possible that he knew Mathins was going to be good soon, but didn't need to pick him earlier. But more likely than not, Polian probably got lucky.

I think it defies the English language to describe something as both lucky and a steal in the same sentence. Lucky is correct. Not my fault others get so upset about it, then lash out. But that's the forum.

There is nothing about my posts that suggests Ballard threw a dart. Raimann was known to be a quality developmental LT, who fell. Ballard didn't throw a dart. He saw that Raimann fell, and picked him because the Colts needed a LT..whereas other GMs also knew that Raimann fell but probably had other needs besides a LT. None of that suggests that Ballard knew Raimann would be top 10 in his second year. That turned out to be lucky...not GM shrewedness. And as I said above, Ballard obviously valued Raimann "his top 10 LT" below AP and Woods, based upon where each was picked. There is very little to suggest that Ballard saw something in Raimann that other GMs didn't

Why are folks broadening this topic to the entire Ballard career? It was a good move to trade up ahead of JAX to take JT. I wouldn't use the word steal or luck to describe picking JT. JT was a known quantity who has played like that known quantity, and Ballard made a move to get him. Good for Ballard..

Hurts was not as accurate and did not run as well during the second half of the season...just my eye test. AJ Brown seemed to have critical drops and more easily tackled than before. The old players on defense finally started to look old. Beyond coaching and coordination, older player should know how to tackle...and could probably teach the new coordinator how to tackle rather than visa versa. Some are talking like firing the HC. I think the Philly water is finding its level after a season and a half of defying it.

Ok.

Ok, he's top 5...... of what list. I don't know how there can be a linear comparison of a GM who has been here 7 years with other GMs who have been a GM 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,,,,,,,,9, 10 ,years. Kind of a made up comparison for those who like lists I guess.. But I don't have an issue with a list calling him top 5 on it. Doesn't make his rational but lucky picks steals. BTW, I said the Leonard pick was great....at the time he made it. When the folks who persistently criticize the "junior GMs" here didn't even know who Leonard was...and that's why it was great...he saw something others probably didn't. But none of my favorable opinion of the pick back then was based on "love"...its based on rational thought.

Nah. Thinking he drafts just like other GMs who have random hits and misses is not hate. It might seem like hate from the perspective of a reader who lives in an inescapable black hole of positivity and doesn't realize it, but who knows. BTW, I said the Leonard pick was great....at the time he made it. When the folks who persistently criticize the "junior GMs" here didn't even know who Leonard was. Just offering that for what ever reason Leonard has to do with the topic.

His play has been a big contributor to their 1-7 drop-off to end the season. Sometimes defenses just figure out a player or figure out an offense and then that offense has no counter move. Philly went 1-7 down the stretch, so their previous success was really pretty tenuous if some of the minor things that have happened to them caused that big of a drop off. And the old Philly defensive players are starting to look old. Change in coaching, but those vets don't seem to be moving as well.

Yes, I agree. But why credit the GM for the steal when he simply got lucky that the round 3 player is playing a top 10? Use the word steal if you want, I get it. But using it in a way that credits a GM for doing the stealing in front of the nose of all other GMs is not even close to the truth about how the draft works and why each year players all over the NFL outplay their draft positions.

All season has shown: Mayfield > Hurts. It took a while, but all water finds its own level. Mayfield would have looked good in a Colts uniform.