DougDew
-
Posts
18,393 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by DougDew
-
-
9 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:
Good lord. This is why you get so much push back. The argument you have made all day is impossible to prove one way or the other, yet you keep harping on it. How do you not see you are the problem?
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, cdgacoltsfan said:
Blah. Blah ..blah. That's how it may or may not have went down but that's not answering the question. What would you have done was the question. What move would you have made???
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, cdgacoltsfan said:
Rivers, Wentz , Ryan. You seem to want to blame Ballard exclusively for all 3 "failures". In your humble opinion, based on the circumstances at the time, what would you have done?????
Rivers, Wentz , Ryan. You seem to want to blame Ballard exclusively for all 3 "failures". In your humble opinion, based on the circumstances at the time, what would you have done?????
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.
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, Superman said:
What options was he supposed to pursue in August 2019? And what impact did that have on whether the team could pursue other QB options during the typical QB acquisition time period?
This is a major stretch. Ballard traded a depth WR for a backup QB in 2017, and that guy wound up being a pretty decent backup / spot starter. Then they overpaid him for 2019 to protect against his potential free agency, and when it was obvious that he wasn't the guy, they moved on. If you think that's a whiff in the QB evaluation process, have at it. But it's not as strong of a point as you think.
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
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Superman said:
The JB contract decision didn't appear to influence the Colts' decision to do something different at QB. They moved on from JB as the starter after 2019. In 2020, they carried Luck's dead money, JB's extension, and Rivers' $25m, while JB was the backup and short yardage sneak man. And then JB was gone in 2021, with no continuing cap ramifications (Luck's dead money was also gone, and Rivers was retired with no cap penalty in 2021).
So it's safe to say that the JB decision didn't have anything to do with the Colts taking so long to find a QB.
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.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Superman said:
It's pretty obvious what happened. Reich was the driving force behind the Colts having Rivers and Wentz. If not for Reich, it's likely that the Colts would not have acquired either of them. I also think it's pretty obvious that Irsay judged it that way.
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.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Superman said:
Do you think Reich's influence over the Colts signing Rivers or trading for Wentz is overstated?
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.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
I don't think Ballard thought Wentz or Ryan would stink but maybe envisioned wanting someone different that might be better. Ryan stinking even blew me away and I admitted I was wrong about him but then again, that was something many didn't expect. I loved the Rivers signing by the way and I do think Ballard wanted him simply because we traded our 13th pick for Buckner going into that season and Ballard knew Rivers could win games and was the best option at that point. We had a good roster in 2020 when Rivers came abord, damn near beat Buffalo in the playoffs.
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 .
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Superman said:
Do you think Reich's influence over the Colts signing Rivers or trading for Wentz is overstated?
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.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
I am not sure "want" is the right word to use. He was ok with it would be better to say because he allowed it.
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?
-
1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
I agree with your 1st statement, but I think Frank wanted Wentz more than the other 2. Irsay wanted Matt Ryan and even admitted he did.
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.
-
3 minutes ago, Jason_ said:
Kinda feels like your just being pedantic
Or some are overexaggerating the influence of a HC?
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
Ballard but I think Shane had input in that because he likes that style of QB, like a Hurts type. That is just opinion, I have no fact to back that up but wanted to answer your question.
Ballard wanted AR. Did Ballard NOT want Ryan or Wentz?
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, csmopar said:
Frank has openly admitted he brought Wentz here.
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.
5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:Frank wanted Wentz, to most it is pretty clear by how it happened and by what Frank was saying about being able making Wentz great again. I also believe Irsay wanted Ryan.
Fine. Did Ballard NOT want either?
Now the other half of the question. Who wanted AR?
-
8 minutes ago, KB said:
The answer to your question lies within how the team operates internally. Which nobody on here will know. Sorry, but you won't find answers here for that question.
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.
-
18 minutes ago, Jason_ said:
Why would a GM, Ballard in particular, hire a HC if he (Ballard) doesn't agree with the schemes that HC wants to run?
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..
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, Superman said:
I think Reich's reputation as a QB guy, his prior connection to Rivers and Wentz, and the Colts trying to salvage their window all played into the way the QB situation was handled in those years. And while I think the QB decisions would be collaborative between the GM and HC all the time, it's likely that Reich's input had more weight at that time than it might have under different circumstances.
By the time Steichen gets hired, the decision was already made that the Colts would be drafting a QB, not going after another veteran. The dynamic and the circumstances were very different. And in the process of evaluating draft prospects, I would assume there was a typical collaboration between the GM and the HC.
It seems like your objective is to preemptively make sure that Ballard receives no more responsibility for Richardson than he did for Rivers and Wentz. 'If Ballard didn't get the blame for the vets, then he shouldn't get the credit for Richardson.' You should just say it and get it over with. Everyone sees where you're going, and some might even agree with you, but I don't think you're going to convince anyone.
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.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, KB said:
I think that's completely up to Ballard and how he operates. Something none of us would know for certain.
One of the scouts was pounding the table for Jaylon Jones last year and Ballard said the picks on him. I'd imagine his input goes a little further this year.
As far as head coaches like Reich, probably not. Ballard has to build the head coaches team. Even when Pagano was in the last year, and everyone knew he was going, he got the guys he wanted.
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.
-
1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:
Is it hard to believe that Ballard tries to get his head coach the players they really want?
Frank wanted Parris Campbell
Frank wanted Kylen Granson
Frank wanted Pittman
Frank wanted Taylor.
And these are just the guys that we know about. I’m sure there were others.
And Ballard got them.
Now Ballard has Steichen. Is there any reason to think he won’t get his new head coach the players he wants? He’s already demonstrated that he’s willing to draft or sign smaller, quicker receivers: Downs and McKenzie. I think that demonstrates those tall receivers that Ballard acquired were Frank-types, not Ballard-types. Ballard tries to get his HC the players he wants if at all possible and within reason.
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?
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Jason_ said:
I'm not disputing that at all. I'm only saying that it wouldn't have required nearly as many people as most claim it would have and it's not as far fetched as those same people believe.
Sure I could see Ballard being angry if he had not been included in the decision. The original post I responded to said "it didn't seem as though Ballard wanted to fire Frank". Perhaps I misinterpreted what you meant, but I do think that Ballard was ready to fire Frank and probably had been. But I could see him not agreeing with the timing and even moreso the Saturday decision.
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.
-
24 minutes ago, Jason_ said:
ok...so you remember there being speculation. I honestly do not. Still though, that's not quite the same as what you originally said. I also don't believe that. If anything, I believe that Ballard would have fired Reich sooner if he'd been able to. This, of course, is just speculation on my part.
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.
-
27 minutes ago, KB said:
https://youtu.be/juUGda4Awqg?si=3iMT2Ck5GCM99Myx
Not to interject. I was listening to this the other day and I think it lines up with what you're asking. During the interview here with Coach Partridge he talks about how he got to his desk, got settled in, then Chris hit him with a list of FAs that he wanted him to rate and rank off the bat. So even position coaches have influence coming in the door. Their opinion on these matters are one of the things they are brought in for.
I'm sure the dynamic does change with a new coach to a degree. He dosnt know what he likes as much as he did Frank's who he has been working with for the last few years. Now he has to figure out what the new coach wants so he can bring that to the roster.
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.
-
35 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:
I don't think I do see your logic. It's not * for tat. Most people that blame Frank believe he was more to blame than Ballard. If the same roster construction aside from a few new HC influenced players make the difference between a miserable 4 win season and being a couple plays away from a division title, I think that speaks more to the coaching than it does to the roster makeup/General manager.
If we are successful in the future, then I will credit Shane for being a necessary change and bringing a winning culture to the locker room. I already think he's done that, like I said. If we have future success utilizing the processes that everyone complains hard on Ballard about, then I will credit Ballard for sticking to his principles and making the necessary changes (including hiring Shane Steichen and drafting AR)... It's not * for tat.
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?
-
3 minutes ago, Superman said:
At the presser, Ballard signaled that there was a disagreement between him and Irsay about the decision to make the change from Reich to Saturday. He called the discussions "spirited." I don't know if that was more about firing Frank midseason, or about hiring Saturday, but his comments made me think he wasn't happy with the combination of decisions. At that time. Whether he would have been on board with replacing Reich after the season is a different story.
At the time, the team record was 3-5-1. I don't think that's 'about .500.'
But more importantly, that team was broken, and so was Reich. I remember watching the Denver game in Week 5, and thinking that Reich could be fired after that game if they lost. And that's significant, because the idea of the Colts firing a coach midseason was pretty much unheard of that point. But it was well warranted.
As time went on, my level of interest dropped dramatically. I watch every game, I follow all the news, pay attention to practice reports and injury info... and I was emotionally checked out. Firing Reich fired me back up. My point is that I don't need to speculate about how the rest of the season would have gone. I was done with Reich, and I think it's obvious that Irsay was done with him also.
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.
-
1
-
Colts offseason discussion / Ballard Grievances (merge)
in Colts Football
Posted
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.