DougDew

You mean you would be happy? You're right, winning by getting lucky is not fun to me. Being the guy who plays the least bad is not fun even if you win the race. In fact, I'd be embarrassed to hoist the trophy, acting like I actually accomplished something. Ever play golf? The winner isn't all that happy when they were 15 over par and the rest were 17. They are happiest when their process leads to them playing well at the times it matters. Being the best when others are being their best. That's why they practice, and that's when sports and competition is satisfying. Who actually wins is secondary to seeing the process being fulfilled by playing well and beating the best at their best.

Geez. Both the Steelers and Pats suck. They both just got rid of their starting QBs from last season. Rivalries only matter to me when all teams are in the upper echelon of the AFC. Who can finish the most mediocre is a yawner, and I thought all three teams were no better than that. I guess that's a basic difference in how different people enjoy the game of NFL football. I said early in the season and now, I like competent football, and thought DET, MIA, and some of the new teams to the leadership roles were going to be a more compelling watch than a team with a rookie QB with 13 college starts, and then his backup. HOU was a fun watch too, and was a surprise.

I thought it was terrible season for a fan, is what I meant. Some on here, and even quoted in this post, at the beginning of the season called it a "throw away season" where they expected about 6 wins, but was going to watch AR progress. That's what they said. Well, after 4 games, that throw away season with a BUT, didn't even have a BUT anymore. Yawn. But I guess some found a way to think Minshew and the non explosive roster...even JT was out for a while...was somehow going to prevail in the AFC? It didn't take the end of the season when Ballard actually said "more explosive" for me to already know what he finally admitted. Yes, for a Colts fan who sees reality and expected a big nothing, that's pretty much what the season was. Little hope with AR. Nothing to watch without him. Terrible from a fan's perspective. I suppose the players and the team had a decent season, winning 9 games, but that's not what I was talking about. BTW, there was a post earlier that I don't seem to see anymore, that said " some of the more positive fans tend to act like the biggest heels" and they come after people more. I agree.

Its been a while. Can you remember what the purported reasoning was to not select Jordan Love? (I don't think there was ever a clear discussion of that from Ballard). I think that was the year we drafted either Eason or Sam. Not saying that Love didn't have some risks, but I believe that was the year we used pick 13 to trade for Buck...but in the big scheme of things...a DT can still be found easier than a QB. GB drafted Love with Rodgers on the roster for a while. I'd think Love could have been a successor to Rivers, even if Rivers came back the second year. No good reason to pass on a QB just because you signed a 39 year old. I suspect Ballard thought the team was "closer" than it really was simply because it made the playoffs the year before with Rivers?

Excellent paragraph. The counter to that would be the 55% hit rate GMs typically get, or individual decisions like trading for Buckner when there was a need for a long term QB. where these specific facts are used to deflate the criticism of process and philosophy. None of know all of the options that were available...that were discarded....and never made public. A person can nit pick every single decision to death, and I can't think of any one decision that didn't seem reasonable at the time, but the overall philosophy guides the final selections and is responsible for what the roster looks like. Many of us have problems with that and I thought it was an issue early on, just seemingly a blind spot towards valuing explosion...which is weird for a guy who also values RAS. RAS in positions where RAS may not that be critical, with seemingly little differentiation towards position.

And this is where you likely agree with some, but not others. Many of us thought this was a terrible season, never had a chance to advance any farther than any other team that finished with the same or slightly worse record. If the Colts got in, it would have been due to circumstances. Advancing a season because of circumstances and not the execution of a plan is very unentertaining to many. Fun or enjoyable seasons is about more than just happening to win a few more games than expected with your limited backup QB. Also, you are praising someone for their strong opinions, then later moving that thought to describing him speaking the truth. And facts themselves are hollow unless all of the facts are presented fairly. Like the post above from the Colts beat writer who factually pointed to all of the players other teams lost (cleared space for other players), but then stopped short of listing the facts about which players replaced them, which many were improvements (on paper). This is the entire criticism of Ballard this offseason so far is that he did not let players leave in order to clear space for the position to be improved. At least any attempt to do so failed (on paper).

I appreciate your opinion about the issue. I am asking questions that I think should be answered before strong opinions on the matter are formed. The fact that they can't be answered from our perspective is really my point. I don't believe I am acting like a victim at all. I haven't accused anybody of treating me unfairly.

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.