Superman

Yeah, that's further than I'm willing to go. I get your point, you get mine. It was 4-3 at the end of the season. Luck missed Weeks 4 and 5, then missed the final seven games. And those final seven went about the way you would expect with a backup QB, especially considering the opponents. I will say, that team performed better than anyone expected without Luck, but that season was ugly from the opening kickoff, mostly because the roster was lacking. Bad OL, struggling defense, poor coaching, and Luck was pressing even before he got hurt. Free pass!

This has been done to death, I don't want to do it again. But I think some folks need to revisit the weekly happenings before, during, and after the 2011 season. Maybe even go back to 2010 to understand what was already happening.

You and I feel mostly the same about Grigson. I know where you're coming from. I just think anything good that happened when he was here was because we had Andrew Luck, not because he also inherited a LT and drafted a really good WR in the third round. To the record without Luck, it's very different to ask a backup QB to win a couple games here and there, vs going entire seasons without your starter. Going 7-9 with Jacoby Brissett and Brian Hoyer isn't crumbling, it's about as good as you can expect. And they popped right back up to 11 wins when they got a good QB again. I've said it before, I think the 2019-2021 Colts are making some noise if Luck doesn't retire.

That's one particular area. But I think we could use high level difference makers at several positions. We can raise the ceiling at pass catcher, DB, LB, DL in general... I think we must if we want to compete for a SB.

I don't think there's a real connection between the stuff you mention in the first paragraph to anything that happened in 2023, or the way the season ended. To the bolded, most of them were injured in 2022. And I think the real problem was with the HC, who was fired in the middle of the season. I don't think there's a direct link from that stuff to 2023, and I definitely don't think any of that is relevant to Franklin's attitude or his tweet, which was my initial point.

Mostly agree. I don't think we need to trade up this year to get a difference maker, though. That's just the way I see the draft going. My point though is that I think it's legitimate to think that good QB play enhances the quality of other position groups. And I think some are too quick to dismiss the potential of some of the young players. I still think the roster building needs a shot in the arm, aside from whatever boost we hope to see from having good QB play.

Just in the interest of being on the record here, I could not disagree more.

Slow down there. You said 'Grigson's teams had more success.' I said Grigson had a franchise QB fall into his lap, and when Ballard had that same QB, his team had similar success. I'm not talking about blame, not in this arm of the discussion. I'm talking very narrowly about the difference between the Colts under Grigson, and the Colts under Ballard. Any difference in their level of success is not because Grigson did something better than Ballard has. It's because Grigson had Andrew Luck, and there's nothing else to it. I think he did a little bit more than Ballard has done so far at WR (with mostly poor results). Other than that, I don't think there was anything about his focus that helped him build the roster. I will not try to take credit away from him for Hilton, that was easily his best draft pick ever, and he deserves credit for it. He traded up and everything. But the two previous picks were TEs... I guess you could argue that Grigson was highly interested in adding offensive talent around Luck in that first draft... But Ballard has spent three second rounders on WRs, so again, it's not about strategic focus, I don't think. To the bolded, I'm leaning away from that. I think it was about the QB. Even with AC, Luck was one of the most sacked/hit QBs in the league. And I think if we had to watch Grigson flop around trying to find a QB, it would have been much, much worse than what we've seen with Ballard for the last five years.

To the bolded, those were very different problems, were they not? In 2021, we saw a lack of heart. In 2023, there was maybe a lack of discipline. I don't think of Reich and Wentz as sacrificial lambs. I think of them as the source of the foul smell in the kitchen. You take out the rotting trash (it's an analogy, not calling them rotting trash), and the air clears. You don't have to side eye everything else in the kitchen just because it was there at the same time as the rotting trash. Regarding keeping it in mind, to each his own. It seems petty to keep pointing at it and directing blame for it at an individual player who gets a little snarky on social media. Especially when that player is saying a lot of the same things you're saying -- it's time to make it happen on the field, it's about wins, get some banners, etc.

Because identifying the reason the team isn't contention level is not the same as giving the GM a pass. Just to flesh this out a bit, I said in 2020 that the Colts should draft a QB, and I would have been fine with Ballard being dismissed in 2022. But I think the reason he wasn't fired and Reich was is because Irsay held Reich responsible for the QB direction. Right, wrong, or indifferent, if that's the case, then I'm viewing 2023 and beyond as a reset. So I personally don't see the point is harping on the prior QB direction when talking about Ballard. I think he's taken a different approach, and has some rope to see it through. I can't speak to that. We can talk about the roster in general, but my comment about "spoiled" and my response to stitches about Grigson is very QB centric, because I think that's the root of the discussion in those particular areas. When I talk about the defense, I'm not saying 'it will get better when the QB is better.' I'm saying I think we need to handle things differently, and I put some of that on Ballard in particular. I agree, but I think in general, we're somewhat dismissive of the potential of some of the young players on the roster. I respect you and your opinions as well. For the most part, I don't engage with people who I think are unreasonable. I wouldn't keep going back and forth if there wasn't mutual respect. To the bolded, even if you think I put more importance on the QB situation than we should, it does not mean I'm giving Ballard a free pass.

I went back to your post yesterday because I thought Franklin's actual comments would speak better to your criticism of what he tweeted yesterday. I don't personally have a problem with his tweet yesterday, however we want to characterize it, because Twitter is a cesspool and he's probably been targeted with some really awful stuff over the last couple weeks. I saw it as him rolling his eyes at the emotional reaction from people on social media. I did not see it as a window into his psyche. For that, I point you to what he said a couple weeks ago. As for the 'they didn't show up' thing, I think it's overboard to continue hanging a team failure from two years over the heads of players who remain from that team. You're using it as license to throw a team failure in the face of an individual player who said something you didn't like. I agree with you that the 2021 (we've been saying 2022, but we're talking about the end of 2021, right?) team had a big problem somewhere, but I think it's unfair and unreasonable to keep holding it against the remaining players from that team. Especially since I think the main issues were probably Reich and Wentz, who are no longer here. (I don't think last year's loss to the Texans is close to the same thing; overachieving team with a backup QB that barely lost on a heartbreaking play, not a team that melted down in the last two weeks and wasn't even competitive in the final game.)

Isn't that absolutely about the difference at QB? I don't think there's any doubt. My point is not to shield Ballard from blame. My point is it seems like you're arguing that Grigson did a better job of stocking high value positions because he had a better strategic focus on those positions, and I don't think that's accurate. His best WR was a third rounder, he didn't do anything at CB that Ballard hasn't tried, he inherited his LT, and the QB fell in his lap. His 'swing for the fences' moment was trading a first for a RB, so his strategic focus was flawed as well.

Neither will I, so it would be nice to table this talking point for a while. I replied about the "spoiled" thing because I think Colts fans expectations are really high, and part of that is because the Colts had really good QBing for 20 straight years. And now, we're kind of seeing how the rest of the league operates, and it's not as much fun. I don't think fans are hyper focused on Raekwon Davis level signings, for instance, when they're getting high level QB play. Also, I think any examples of winning without a QB are pretty rare, and mostly 20 years old. Just take the AFC. You have to go back to the 2000 Ravens to find a team that made the SB without high level QB play -- and they had a generationally great defense that will probably never be duplicated because of the way the game has changed. The worst QBs to go to the SB in the AFC since then were Rich Gannon (who was MVP the year the Raiders went), rookie Big Ben, Flacco (who went nuclear in the playoffs), and cooked Peyton Manning in 2015 (who was still able to beat the Chargers and Patriots with his mind). Since then, it's been Brady, Mahomes, and Burrow. You know all of this, I just wanted to put it all out there. And we can talk about the Colts messing around with the position instead of drafting someone, and the reasons why. But my point is that Colts fans are not used to not having a QB who can make everything better the moment he steps on the field. Our experience from 2019-2023 is pretty typical for other teams around the league.

Let's zero in on this. Did the Colts lose those two games at the end of the 2022 season because Franklin didn't care enough about winning? And do you think it's fair and reasonable to hang that collapse over any particular player's head two years later? Fine if you're not pleased, but it's snark on social media, not a representative display of his mindset. In his case, it's probably mostly him being defensive because fans have spent the last two weeks complaining about him (and his teammates) getting new contracts. But I think accusing a player like Franklin in particular of a lack of desire to be better is just misplaced frustration.

I would not say spoiled. But I do think there's a segment of Colts fans that don't appreciate how tough it is to win when you don't have a really good QB, and probably don't appreciate how difficult it is to acquire a really good QB. There is some perspective that can be gained by looking around the league, and through its history, to gain better appreciation for how most teams operate when they're struggling to find their guy.

Okay, but is your stance that the reason the Colts haven't had more success on the field is because players like Franklin haven't brought it enough on game day? Don't we all agree that the reason we haven't seen more success is because the roster needs some specific improvements, especially at QB? Yeah, his tweet had a lot of attitude to it, but it's also probably unfair to blame his attitude -- or any other player -- for the Colts' lack of success. His actual perspective is obviously much more aligned with what you want and expect. Which, by the way, is why the 'people are okay with these results' angle is so unnecessary. Every single person who follows the Colts, including the players, wants the Colts to have more success than we've seen recently. This talking point is silly.

Okay, so my gut instinct is to push back HARD against this, for obvious reasons. So I stopped and paused and read it again, and I've let it sink in, and I've read your subsequent posts. I get what you're saying. I still strongly disagree. Bottom line, what Grigson had was Andrew Luck. A franchise level QB who raised the tide for the entire operation. The one year Ballard had Andrew Luck -- not even at 100%, and probably being held back for the first half of the season -- the team looked just as capable as any of the 2012-14 teams looked. And I'd stack up the 2019-2021 rosters with those teams as well. I'll give him some credit for recognizing the moment after 2012. He did a terrible job of rising to it, though. His big move was trading a first for a RB, so it's not like he was especially focused on premium positions either. Outside of Luck, Hilton (third rounder, not a top pick, Ballard has done just as much and more at WR), and Davis (second rounder, again Ballard has done just as much), everything Grigson tried was an abject failure, and his ineptitude was papered over by having a great QB.

I think Zaire (and the other players on the roster) deserve more credit than this. It's more of the 'they don't care!!' stuff that I think is just misplaced frustration. Here's what Zaire said after his extension: 'Cocky and dismissive' is not how I'd describe his attitude. His tweet yesterday was snarky and defensive for obvious reasons, but his own words make it clear that he has higher expectations than what we've seen the last three years. And I'm sure that's a common sentiment among the rest of the team.

This is a valid point. I don't think the Colts are relying exclusively on young players to perform -- the team's core is a good mix of young players and established vets -- but at some point the roster building needs to be accelerated. As a counter, I think the primary force multiplier for any contention level team is the QB. (Coaching as well. We're talking about the roster, but I think Steichen made a huge difference for the offense last year, and I think the biggest problem on the defense is Gus Bradley.) If we have really good QB play, it probably changes how we feel about the young TEs, or Downs/Pierce. If the offense is more effective, that can boost the pass rush, which can help the secondary, and then Brents' timeline is different than you're anticipating. There's no question we need difference makers at multiple positions, but I think we've been patchwork at QB for so long -- along with some questionable coaching and development -- that we haven't really reaped the benefits of the young players performing. I'm not suggesting that Alec Pierce is going to perform like Nico Collins, but look at what having a good QB can do for a young player. So again, yeah the roster building needs a boost, no question. But I think the potential of some of our young players is being overlooked. And I think we have some veteran players who can perform at a higher level than we've seen over the last two seasons -- MPJ, JT, Buckner, Moore, etc.

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.