Superman

I'm frustrated in advance. I voiced my opinion on the defense when it was obvious that Bradley was coming back.

I think it's about tolerance? Immunity, maybe??

Realistically, 2024 would have to be a disaster for Ballard to be fired. And while some are really upset with the way the offseason has gone so far, I don't think the common belief is that 2024 will be a disaster. I do think the stakes have changed, but 2025 is more likely to be the decision point, if things aren't looking better by then.

Not really, no. I think several people who are upset today have admitted that they still didn't want Diggs, despite the reduced cost. I asked Solid84 if he even wanted Diggs at the actual cost, and he said no. 'It's not about Diggs!' has been the common refrain. It's annoyance that the Colts didn't do something, while the Texans in particular have been more active. But again, from the beginning, I think you misread the situation on the Diggs trade, and the appetite for it. It's probably not right for me to continue discussing another poster in public. I'll just say I think the pushback is about something other than a lack of eloquence and some spelling errors.

That's really astute. Thanks for that contribution.

That thread was brought up in response to your claim that no one even knew Diggs might be available, which was incorrect. Then you said it's disingenuous to say that people would not want Diggs for a second rounder, and I think it's obvious that that's incorrect. I just think you're wrong on this. Sure, some people would reconsider trading for Diggs for a 2025 second rounder vs a 2024 first rounder. If you had simply said that, I would not have pushed back. As for Chloe being cornered by wolves, I think that's an interesting and overly sensational way to describe what happened. But if any poster is getting called out for their way of posting, they should either be prepared to defend themselves, or think about adjusting their style and substance. If you want to armor up and defend that poster against the "wolves," that's your call.

Not a lot to disagree with here. Just seems like the same discussion from two weeks ago, and now the Texans trade for a player that most people didn't want to begin with, and it starts all over again. Like John Waylon said, it's salt in the wound, but maybe everyone should try a bandaid so that wound isn't so exposed. By the way, I'm not giving Ballard credit for trying. But it does rub me the wrong way when people say stuff like they don't care about improving the team. They have a different vision than you prefer, that doesn't mean they don't care. To me, that's nonsense. So I think when people bring up the 'trying,' it's in response to these very bold claims that ignore the trying. It's still a bottom line business, either you build a good roster or you don't.

I didn't. But do you think "can't stand Diggs, true diva" gets softened to 'can't stand Diggs, true diva, but I'll take him for a second rounder'? I also don't think the price for Diggs turned out to be "cheap." It's a second + $19m. Cheaper than a first, sure. Still a considerable cost. And like I said, there are some of us who would not have wanted Diggs, period. Recalibrating the cost is not relevant for them.

You're absolutely wrong about this, and trying to rewrite history. Comments from that thread: Drama queen Not a long term solution Can't stand Diggs, true diva Not interested, trade for a guy who has more than 1-3 years Very likely to be deteriorating This is a terrific draft for WRs, no thanks I don't think he's right for the Colts Cancer to the locker room Cancer - hard pass I personally would not want Diggs, period. I think others feel the same. There's a reason the Bills are eating $31m in cap penalties to get rid of him. Some might be more open to trading for Diggs for less than a first rounder. It is not disingenuous for someone to say they would not want Diggs, no matter the cost.

Unless there are significant injuries, I think he would be. In fact, even if there are significant injuries...

I don't think there's any shift in positional focus in the draft, with the exception of taking Richardson at #4. But when Ballard takes a DT in the first round, it will reinforce what he's always done and what we've always known about him. I didn't expect much from the Colts in free agency, so it's kind of confusing to me that people are so frustrated with the Colts for not doing much in free agency. To me, this was obvious. To some extent, I thought we might sign a veteran corner, and I think they looked into it. I thought they'd replace Grover with a cheaper option; instead they kept Grover, so that eliminates the need to replace him (but they still signed Davis...) That's about it. The success or failure of the Colts with Ballard will be based on how well they hit in the draft, and how well the QB plays. That's what Ballard is tying his legacy to, and it will either work out well, or it will fail. But hoping that Ballard suddenly changes his philosophy and approach seems like people baited themselves into believing in something that had zero chance of happening. We saw this play out in real time with the Sneed deal. Everyone should have known that it wasn't going down. So for me, watching all the strong reactions to what the Colts have done, a big part of it for me is 'did you really expect something different?'

Honestly, I would LOVE to read some manifestos from Colts fans.

"Get shoved in here"? You mean, the decision to have a Ballard complaint thread? You can PM me on that if you want. Otherwise, it's a decision made by the mod team, and that's all there is to say about it.

Absolutely.

I expect the Colts to add a good WR prospect in the draft. That's been my stance since the end of the last season, and continues to be my expectation. If the draft ends and we look the same at WR, my tone on Ballard and Co. will shift. I do not think the Colts are withholding weapons from Richardson. Apparently, I think more highly of the Colts offensive skill players than most people. And I still think they need to add a WR. I was not interested in Diggs or Ridley, so their signings don't move the needle for me. Also, I think it can be risky to add a mercurial WR to a room with a young QB and an emerging core. I'm sure the Texans have thought it through, but the Diggs trade could go either way.

I actually think we do, and it was a lot shorter than the amount of time people spent talking about it...

This statement is true approximately zero percent of the time.

I can also disagree with some choices, agree with others, and be neutral on others.

There's actually quite a wide spectrum of opinions on Ballard. A few weeks ago, someone said I've 'flipped sides' because I was critical of some of his decisions. Why are there sides? Why can't I have my own perspective without there being a line in the sand and I have to choose which side I'm on?

All the labeling and name calling is annoying, and should stop, IMO. I don't think I engage in that way. Although, I think some would be proud to be labelled Ballard haters. Someone just called him dumb... The discourse gets pretty sharp, and the knives come out. And from my perspective, it's usually anyone who isn't grabbing a pitchfork that gets called an apologist, or labeled as someone who is content with mediocrity.

And if I'm not * about this today after the Diggs trade, I'm an apologist? Why do people who view this differently have to be talked down about? Specific to this trade, I'm pretty wary of Diggs, so despite the relatively low cost (a 2nd plus $19m isn't nothing, btw), it's not something for which I would advocate. Especially with a young QB and core that had success without Diggs. He might be WR3 for them, and if he's not happy, they're going to hear about it. So while it probably won't be a setback for them even if it doesn't work out, I don't think it's a great move. And I could be wrong, and he plays great, and everyone's happy, and the Texans continue to separate from the Colts. I'll have no problem admitting that. I still don't think the Colts should have considered taking this swing for this player.

Excuse me, but the comment I responded to was specifically about Diggs.

The Bills also started winning when they adjusted their passing game away from forcing the ball to Diggs. And Diggs didn't really like that. There's also no acknowledgment of an injury from Diggs or the team, and he was not on the injury report.

I'm not trying to call you out. I don't do subliminals, you know that. I'm asking for a good faith discussion without name calling and labeling. I don't call you or anyone else a Ballard hater just because you disagree with me on something he does or doesn't do. I don't think not trading for someone like Diggs has any relevance to my opinion on Ballard. Eye rolling because people are hyperventilating about a player that they didn't even want is very different from being an apologist.

While changing HCs three years in a row, and being unable to win more than 4 games in any given year. The Texans look good right now, arrow is firmly pointing up. Mostly because they got a HC and QB. I don't know why they're viewed as a model franchise for turning a team around.