Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts


Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Restored last won the day on May 3 2013

Restored had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,438 Pro Bowler

1 Follower


  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There has to be more going on behind the scenes because it makes no sense to do what they did.
  2. I’m all for it. A lot of people have questioned what kind of leader he is because he’s so passionate and dishes it out to opponents. But if you look at interviews of his former coaches and teammates throughout the years, there’s never been a question about his leadership. It’s the perfect fit for this young team.
  3. I agree. I hope for the best but nothing looks good on the surface. This is giving me flashbacks of the Patrick Robinson signing.
  4. I fully expect this thread to get shut down and I don’t agree with Sterling’s take but I thought it was important to share.
  5. It's certainly possible that the Colts could have valued JB as a solid stop-gap while simultaneously not believing him to be the long-term answer. Just a thought. It's possible that the Colts keep him but I'll wait to see what happens.
  6. The way people have been criticizing this deal, you'd think that Ballard gave JB a 7 year deal at $35 million per year. He gave JB a one year extension at a price that they could afford. Should it have been less given how JB played? Absolutely. But again to my point, you could make that argument about each and every player in a given year. It's all hindsight analysis however. The way to look at it is to see how reasonable it was under the circumstances at the time and given the situation that Ballard and the Colts were in, it was fairly reasonable.
  7. Couple of things. First, JB may still be traded or released before its all said and done so your point about being in awe of him being kept at the same dollar amount could be rendered moot. Second, myself nor the Colts thought of JB as the future. This is obvious in that they only granted him a one year extension instead of something on the lines of a 3-5 year deal. Hopefully you knew that already.
  8. Oh please. If JB had performed well, this forum would’ve been singing Ballard’s praises non-stop about that deal vs. critiquing him since JB didn’t. I don’t think majority of this forum disagreed with the decision at the time either. The reality is that Ballard made a fairly reasonable decision at the time given the circumstances while the main knock that you have against it is heavily steeped in hindsight analysis.
  9. But see that’s just it. It is a lot more complicated than that and the reasoning behind what the Colts did is easy to question when we have the benefit of hindsight. It doesn’t mean what the Colts did wasn’t logical though.
  10. Of course it does when you have a player that's brought in to play as a backup (barring Raiders don't move Carr) and has an expansive body of work to go off of.
  11. That was the whole point of the hedge though. If he didn't perform well, the team wasn't on the hook for the long-term and could have an out after the season. Yes, the cap hit is arguably higher than it should be for a player of JB's caliber but it isn't as backbreaking as your alluding to it being.
  12. I agree. Though I wonder if Ballard’s reasoning for not signing Brady was more about his distrust for that organization than it was Brady’s playing ability or contract desires.
  13. It wasn't just Hasselbeck that was surprised. Other teammates and people (Manning and others) were surprised along with Ballard and Reich. I'm sure Ballard and co. were well aware of Luck's personality and how to communicate with him too. It doesn't necessarily mean that they should have known about the retirement though. At the time, many thought that JB was dealt a bad hand in 2017 and felt that between the Colts improved roster and coaching staff, they could see some improvement from JB. And to be fair to that point, when the Colts were at 5-2, many were singing JB's praises; even if some of the metrics showed otherwise. Point being, it was reasonable to think that JB could improve in some areas and perform adequately enough to be a stop-gap starter (though not necessarily as a franchise QB). But don't let that notion be confused with what the Colts intentions were with JB. They clearly never planned on committing to him in the long-term but felt comfortable with paying him for two seasons as a stop-gap and to see what they really had in him.
  14. Yes, communication wasn't there on one side and everything we have seen to this point in terms of verifiable evidence has pointed to Luck being the one not communicating to Ballard, let alone many of his closest friends and teammates. You understand the concept of hedging but are missing how the Colts applied it. Simply put, Colts didn't want to risk walking into this season without at least some form of an answer at the QB position and JB gave them that insurance incase the draft or free agency didn't pan out this offseason. They certainly knew JB's limitations but knew his upside as well, which is why his contract was structured in a way that gave them an out should he have not performed but also gave them an extra year at a reasonable rate should he have exceeded expectations. Going fully one way or the other would have put them in a riskier position than doing what they did.
  15. I agree to disagree on this point but to be clear, you're spinning the facts. Because hedging is all teams can do. They make evaluations based on present and past information. The future is obviously uncertain. I think the hedge was fairly successful. They committed a decent amount of money (because they had the funds to do so and were going to have spend a certain amount anyway) for a short-period of time. The hedge would have been a failure if they committed a large amount of money for a long-period of time which they clearly didn't do.
  • Create New...