DougDew

What argument am I making Jvan, that the statements claiming Frank is responsible for the roster, and even QBs, is unsupported...and has been for about 3 years? Yes, its impossible to prove one way or the other. So why blame Frank? The only folks pushing back are the ones that hold that strong opinion. By my recollection.

Um......no. The premise of this convo is that others are convinced that is was Frank's fault, that he influenced Ballard into those QB decisions. That belief should be supported by them, not me, going down a list of what other options were at Ballard's disposal, like I did just above. Can't do it, because nobody knows what options Ballard may have discarded. Except they still know it was more Frank's fault than Ballard's. Sure. But yes, that's generally the process by which executives make decisions, and how executive sessions are held. I know that.

Lets put a cap on this "Influence" topic from my end. The reason I don't buy into the idea that these QBs were Frank's fault is because I have no idea how Ballard ranked the other options at the time. Things we don't know: Trade for another team's starter...at what price. Draft a 3rd round developmental prospect. The scouting department really likes this guy, but I'm skeptical Trade up for a top 10 prospect. The price needed...the team wants two firsts for pick 8, but I only want to give a 1st and a second. Sign a different FA vet. Lower quality, but lower price. I don't know how many options...if any....Ballard discarded himself before he decided to go with Frank's recommendation. That's typically how executives of any organization make decisions. They don't just go with the guy who's pounding his fists...if anybody ever was...without also making his own decisions about the other options first. He knows where Frank stands, so he has that decision in his hip pocket already. When he has exhausted the other options, and settles on what Frank wants....then Ballard wants it too...and then it becomes his decision alone and not Frank's fault. Frank might be fault for making the recommendation (and he'll be evaluated on that...but probably more as a coach). But Ballard made the decision above all other options he had. And as far as Rivers and Wentz specifically, the only thing Frank can really do is to vouch for working relationships or understanding the offense...and that's only part of the decision. Ballard himself can watch performance tape. whether its Wentz, Rivers, or Ryan, and talk to the executives of the other teams about the player. You believe what you have to believe, but that's how I believe the process works.

We don't know any other viable options that existed in any of these QB decisions. We don't know how much Ballard preferred the final decision on any of the QBs absent of Frank's influence. All we know is what Frank wanted and Irsay wanted, supposedly. We don't actually know to what degree Ballard wanted those exact same QBs too, or if he objected much in any way because he had other ideas. Since we don't know this, we have know idea what level Frank influenced Ballard. Example. Rivers: Did Ballard side with Frank about Rivers over a new young QB because of what Frank was even saying, or because to get a young QB it would mean that Ballard would have to trade his precious 2nd or 3rd round picks to actually move up. Saying Frank pushed for Rivers and we got Rivers doesn't mean we got Rivers BECAUSE Frank wanted him. We may have gotten him because the GM had already discarded other options. But many comments I have read over the years speak to how vehemently someone other than Ballard wanted a player. In that context, its presented as if Ballard had ideas that would have worked out better, but that he gave in to some degree to others who led the bad decisions. That's why I'm asking folks how much influence Frank had, because influence means how much you sway or change someone's mind away from another idea they may have had. And we have no idea what Ballard was thinking relative to other options, other than we probably know he wanted JB and he wanted Stafford, neither of which appear to have been "Frank guys". He probably settled on the Frank guys because he thought they were the best options too, not because of being sold a bag of coal by Frank

He was signed to starters money instead of pursuing other options. That's called a whiff in the Qb eval. process, for which Ballard acknowledged.

Driving force is still not the issue. Who was a nose in front and a nose behind is not how the comments typically present the situation at all. Pounding fist is an expression used when one person has to fight over others OBJECTIONS, because the other has a different option in mind. There is no indication that Ballard ever liked any other QB better at the time than the QBs that were eventually brought here. Good lord. Just because Irsay fired Frank doesn't mean he sees the QB situation like you do. The HC was probably fired because the HC lost the team.

BTW, speaking of QB decisions, Ballard took full responsibility for JB and there was little indication of Frank influencing that, or the contract. For the broader discussion of taking so long to find a QB.

I can believe Ballard taking Frank's side against Irsay when it comes to going with a vet Frank knew (Rivers) over taking a QB high...especially having to trade up for.....but I can't see him accepting Wentz if he didn't think Wentz was also the best option at the time, regardless of what Frank thought. IIRC, rumors were that we were in the market for Stafford, which appears to have been their first choice. I think they both came together to choose Wentz as the best option after Stafford moved on. Frank may have vouched for Wentz' personality, but I don't think Ballard had some other QB he preferred more after he lost on Stafford .

It depends upon who is stating it., but yes, most comments seem to overstate it. In this way. The impression I get is that the one-sided statements tend to imply that Ballard was overruled...that he didn't ALSO think they would be good, but that he sort of had to be convinced or sold by Frank before he himself thought they would be good acquisitions. That neither QB would be here if Frank didn't influence, That Ballard did not think they were the best option at the time absent of Frank's influence. Yes, I think that is an exaggeration.

That's fine. I see what you're saying. A step further: Its safe to say that in this 33.33% dynamic that's going on with QBs and personnel, for which only one gets directly paid to evaluate, is there any reason to think that Ballard was telling the other two that both QBs were going to stink badly before he allowed them to be acquired?

That doesn't tell me if Ballard didn't want either. So you admit, Ballard wanted both Wentz and Ryan...but maybe a pinch less than the other two.

Or some are overexaggerating the influence of a HC?

Ballard wanted AR. Did Ballard NOT want Ryan or Wentz?

You are likely summarizing something else that he said. I remember him saying that he "vouched" for him...and apologized to Mr Irsay for vouching for him. That's not the same thing as bringing him here. Fine. Did Ballard NOT want either? Now the other half of the question. Who wanted AR?

Then to you. Did Frank or Ballard bring Wentz here ("for frank's offense")? Did SS or Ballard pick AR ("for SS offense")? I know nobody knows. I'm asking your opinion.

He wouldn't. He hired Frank and Gus because those are the coaches he wanted to supply personnel for.. You know, symbiosis, not the HC dictating to the GM. That would be weird..

My objective is to opine that its highly unlikely that blaming Frank for the roster failures will result in giving SS the same level of praise for the roster successes. It will then flip to Ballard. I think its more linear to simply say that the guy who runs the draft room for 8 years is the guy responsible for the name that goes to the podium, for the last 8 years, and for giving whatever pick it takes to get the HC the QB he wanted. While a HC may want any player, he isn't the one handing out specific draft picks (AP or Woods at 54?, give up what to move up to take Cross) or making salary cap allocations to secure the desired player. The GM decides if the price for the player is correct relative to the weighting he gives to the HCs wishes, and that's why the player is here. The deal gets done because the GM wants it done, not because the HC also wants it done. Regardless of the level of influence a HC has. JMO. My opinion is that despite the GM giving the player the HC wants for his scheme, (duh, is that how it works?), he also has to believe in the HCs scheme. He's not going to give the HC a bunch of players for a scheme he thinks won't work or is outdated. So yes, it still all comes back to the GM. Its his call, unless the owner gets fed up and has to step in and fire the HC. Specific to the Wentz deal. The reason Wentz was here is because Ballard accepted the price of a 3rd/2nd. If the price was a 1st, or 2 1sts, or 3 1sts, its doubtful that Frank would have gotten the QB "he pounded his fists for", when weighed against other options. What Frank wanted is not the reason Wentz was here.

You guys keep coming back to opining about how things operate internally. I'm confident that it operates the same way it has been, I would wager. In fact, I may be the only one who thinks that. My question was not about how you think it operates: What I'm asking is does the level of input (of anybody under the GM) change in peoples minds when the team fails vs when it succeeds.

Y'all are trying to make points without actually answering pretty simple questions. So it sounds like you are in the HC/GM 70/30 roster construction camp. That may in fact be accurate. That's fine. Hypothetically, do you think its fair to blame Frank for past personnel failures and not to praise SS for future personnel successes? Or even simpler. Was Frank 70% responsible for the River/Wentz/Ryan acquisition? Was Steichen 70% responsible for the AR acquisition? Or was the latter Ballard? Those are pretty easy questions to answer straightforwardly. To the bolded. Why are Downs and McKenzie Ballard types, and not SS types?

Well, yes, I meant fire Frank when Frank was actually fired. It strongly seems that Ballard didn't do that. I don't know where the team would have gone the rest of the way, or if Ballard would have fired him at the end of the season. I characterized it as near .500, but still 3-5-1 could have turned a season into something other than a crapshow. Also, Irsay just signed Frank. A GM doesn't just make the Owner pay a HC for three more years while sitting on a beach. Obviously the owner is always involved. Its his money.

Well, since i thought about this more as to why I had that opinion. I now remember that Saturday said that Irsay basically offered him the job before Frank was even fired. Which was an inference that Irsay fired Frank because he knew he had his replacement secured, and it wasn't an assistant coach. Nowhere was it mentioned that Ballard took the lead on that or was consulted much before Irsay called Jeff, for which I'm sure Ballard was angry about.

That's fine. I'm not disputing to what level a coach may or may not have in an organization. What I'm asking is does the level of input change in peoples minds when the team fails vs when it succeeds.

It seems like you are saying that the players that don't make much of a difference are the ones that the HC influences. But the good players, like AR, are the ones Ballard picked without the same influence from the HC?

I get that. but its a far thing to imply that Ballard led the charge to fire Frank at that time, especially when it was Irsay or Saturday who admitted that Irsay called Jeff to nearly hire him before Frank was told he was fired. I think its safe to say that Irsay drove the bus to fire Frank more than Ballard did. Ok 3-5-1 isn't 500. Frank had lost the team by then, but it still didn't seem like Ballard was wanting to fire Frank right then and then finding an interim, especially since the OC was fired a bit before.

That if previous failures could be blamed on Frank's influence with Ballard deserving little blame in a defense of Ballard, then future successes would be based upon Shane's influence, with Ballard deserving little praise for the turnaround. I'm not asking you what you are going to say in the future. I'm asking if you understand the logic of the point I just made.