Jason_

like I said before...fundamental disagreement. I agree that that is Ballard's job 99% of the time. The QB position being the one exception. I also never suggested to absolve Ballard. But those decisions you're referring to were never his alone to make. more below: again. you're also leaving Irsay out of the equation. Irsay has always been heavily involved in those most important of decisions, particularly related to the HC and QB positions. they don't sign Rivers or trade for Wentz without Irsay's approval. who convinced who of what is something we'll never know 100%. IMO, it makes sense that they would all have been on board with Rivers. Wentz is where the divide started imo. I believe that Reich was the one pounding the table for Wentz and both Ballard and Irsay ultimately acquiesced...in what order they acquiesced we'll never know.

I do remember reading about it after the Colts traded Wentz...but I remember it differently. Besides, like you said it could be revisionist history. The reports also could have been more speculation that actual reports. In my opinion, the most logical explanation is that both Ballard and Irsay preferred to draft a QB, but Reich wanted Wentz and had to convince both Ballard and Irsay. I wouldn't doubt if he had to convince Ballard first, but ultimately I believe he'd have had to convince them both. This is also something I don't fault Ballard for. Like I said earlier in the thread, if you hire a former QB as your offensive minded HC, the ONE position where that HC should get the most say is at QB. The biggest mistake I feel that has been made by Ballard (and Irsay by extension) is keeping Reich around too long. IMO he should have been let go when Wentz was traded. Reich got the guy he wanted, that he believed in and it didn't work. I'd have shown them both the door.

The moment Luck retired? I don't remember reading those reports at all. Now after Rivers and before Wentz, what I remember reading is that Reich wanted and had to convince both Ballard and Irsay to go with Wentz instead of drafting a QB.

that depends on where Irsay stood on the matter.

gtho lol

oh good lord. you're right. I'm wrong. I know the flat earth analogy wasn't perfect. I'll stop trying to use analogies and just be blunt moving forward.

Agree all around. I'll be the first to admit that I got spoiled as well. It got to the point that 12 wins and a division title were just assumed. I miss those days but also acknowledge that those are definitely not the norms and not something we can just take for granted.

no, but it was my nicer way of saying that just because you don't agree that you're spoiled, doesn't mean you're not. Btw, saying colts fans are spoiled and calling them blithering buffoons are also no where near the same argument either now are they?

Flat earthers don't agree that the earth is round. That doesn't make them right.

And you provided backlash to the spoiled rotten comment, though I'm also pretty sure he was referring to all colts fans, himself included. And 2006Coltsbestever explained it very well: Here's the difference, in my opinion...the spoiled rotten comment was an opinion provided based on the types of responses that have been given by various members. The "Good to know others are OK with that sort of results. " comment was an (incorrect) assumption offered as being factual due to nothing other than the person not being as outraged as he was. The good ole, "if you don't agree with me then you obviously feel the complete polar opposite" rebuttals that are so common these days. There is almost always a ton of grey area between 2 extremes.

See, this is the kind of crap that starts the conversation down the wrong path. As has been explained before, KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING the reasoning behind past results is far different than being OK with those results. If we're going to have any kind of healthy discussion that's not going to devolve into the usual bickering, then this kind of "putting words in other people's mouths" really needs to stop.

fair enough. I would prefer none of the starters on offense or defense be the primary returner.

It probably should

THANK YOU!

I disagree. The way this team is ran, the buck stops with Irsay, not Ballard. Irsay is the one that extended Reich. Irsay is the one who extended both Grigson and Pagano. Ballard could not fire Reich or changed the ship's course until Irsay was also on board.

Well the thing is, the Luck retirement was just the starting point. At that point, they felt they'd built a team that was ready to compete, so they brought in Rivers. From that point, they kept going the FA route for a new QB rather than draft one (which has been reported to have been Ballard's preference, but not that of Reich. I know some will say that Ballard should have overruled Reich but two points....1, Irsay could have very well been in agreement with Reich at that time as well in regards to trying to "win now" rather than start over with a new rookie QB and 2, a GMs job is to get the kind of players his HC wants. When the GM has an offensive minded HC, especially one that used to be a QB himself, then QB is the one position where that HC should get who he wants and then either sink or swim with said QB. That's what happened to Brian Billick. He convinced the front office he could turn Kyle Boller into a franchise QB. Billick was wrong and that's what got him fired. Same situation with Reich. He got the QB he wanted (multiple times in fact) and ultimately sunk himself. I know a lot of people are unhappy with the lack of results in the past 8 years, but there are reasons for the lack of results that need to be understood.

didn't we hear similar about the browns many, many times? This seems incredibly premature by those good folks at JPAFootball.

if a little tolerance was all that was required, then this wouldn't be a discussion.

How familiar are you with Afroman? lol

do you still see the threads that were created?

also, do they make the trade up for Anderson if they hadn't had all those extra picks from the Watson deal?

I can certainly appreciate that and can't necessarily disagree. I was to the point I was hoping to see the news we'd made the trade.

I don't mean to speak for jvan, but I think it's possible that, though he was responding to you, that portion was in reference to someone else.

Oh I would have been fine with that too. I'll be honest, even before Richardson got hurt last year, I felt that the best outcome for his rookie season would be for him to stay healthy, show improvement as a passer and the team be competitive in every game, but finish with a losing record and preferably a top 5 pick. When he got hurt, I was even more ready for that eventuality. In the end, I'm not upset that the team fared as well as they did because it showed that the roster isn't as bad as some make it out to be and it instilled a great deal of confidence in Steichen. I was just saying that the only way to make that happen is to intentionally do it. A lot of fans would even consider what you suggested tanking...getting rid of higher paid players (which are usually going to be your best players) and not doing anything to replace them. Is that an "evaluation year" or a "tank job". Tomato tomahtoe I guess

I started watching the traffic stops (12 Taze of christmas was great) but lately i've been watching videos of them in court getting destroyed lol. My favorite channel is Team Skeptic. There's a video of a judge Oakley (only one of him so far that I know of) that is amazing.