Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Is this an early HC tell?


Indeee

Recommended Posts

This is actually how the Roto post reads:

 

The Colts have been granted permission to interview Texans DC Mike Vrabel for their defensive coordinator vacancy.

Vrabel was promoted from linebackers coach to defensive coordinator before the 2017 season. His defense was absolutely wretched across the board, but Vrabel has been given a pass due to numerous personnel injuries. What matters most to NFL decision makers is the perception of Vrabel, and he is highly regarded in league circles. He is also getting interest for the Lions' coaching vacancy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Nope. Assistant is assistant. The current team would have to give permission.

 

And I dislike part of that, because position coach to coordinator is not a lateral move, but teams block their assistants from interviewing for coordinator positions all the time. The Packers have been blocking Alex Van Pelt, their QB coach, from interviewing for coordinator jobs for a couple years. And that especially sucks for him because even if he eventually becomes the Packers OC, McCarthy still calls the plays.

you have more knowledge about this than I'm do but from what I have gathered by giving a coach the title of Assistant Head Coach does constitute a promotion. Read it earlier today but now ?I can't find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Indeee said:

This is actually how the Roto post reads:

 

The Colts have been granted permission to interview Texans DC Mike Vrabel for their defensive coordinator vacancy.

Vrabel was promoted from linebackers coach to defensive coordinator before the 2017 season. His defense was absolutely wretched across the board, but Vrabel has been given a pass due to numerous personnel injuries. What matters most to NFL decision makers is the perception of Vrabel, and he is highly regarded in league circles. He is also getting interest for the Lions' coaching vacancy.

Yeah that’s a typo you can tell from the last sentence because the Lions are also going to interview their current DC for their Head Coach’s job so they don’t have a DC vancancy at the moment.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Just maybe Ballard is going to pick the coordinators?  I don't know but my response to you was you said a coordinator cant leave for the same position. No more. no less.

 

Ballard is likely going to help pick the coordinator.   But he's not going to be doing that NOW.

 

Why would he interview a possible coordinator that his new HC might not want?   The new HC will have his own ideas for the coordinator spots.

 

Vrabel is highly thought of.   Just because most people here don't think of him as a HC candidate, doesn't mean he's not one.   He is.    If Ballard is interviewing him it's for the HC position and not the DC spot.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Ballard is likely going to help pick the coordinator.   But he's not going to be doing that NOW.

 

Why would he interview a possible coordinator that his new HC might not want?   The new HC will have his own ideas for the coordinator spots.

 

Vrabel is highly thought of.   Just because most people here don't think of him as a HC candidate, doesn't mean he's not one.   He is.    If Ballard is interviewing him it's for the HC position and not the DC spot.

 

There are a lot of coordinators and assistants who haven't been fired yet. It wouldn't surprise me if some of those are kept. If Luck said he wanted to keep his QB coach I highly doubt he would be fired. I just used that as an example.

The strides the defense made this year may warrant some of those coaches to be considered.

All this really does is show what hiring a new head coach involves.

I feel for all the ones involved and their families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since many of you on here know how much disdain I have for the pats and anyone connected to them in anyway, I would like to see the Colts hire Vrable as head coach. Of all current assistants anywhere in the nfl he deserves a shot as head coach more than anyone. He has tremendous leadership qualities and was a tireless worker as a player for both the steelers and pats. He knows what it takes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Nope. Assistant is assistant. The current team would have to give permission.

 

And I dislike part of that, because position coach to coordinator is not a lateral move, but teams block their assistants from interviewing for coordinator positions all the time. The Packers have been blocking Alex Van Pelt, their QB coach, from interviewing for coordinator jobs for a couple years. And that especially sucks for him because even if he eventually becomes the Packers OC, McCarthy still calls the plays.

 

I'm sorry,  but you have me confused.      You stated in a previous post that teams can't block assistants from interviewing for a job that's a promotion and then you write about the Packers blocking their assistant coach from interviewing for a promotion.       So, I'm lost with what you're trying to say....

 

Here is a link that was posted earlier in ths thread which backs up the concept that teams can NOT block an assistant from interviewing for a position that is a promotion.      If that's true, (and I think it is)  then how is Green Bay doing that with Van Pelt?     Feels like there's more to this AVP story than meets the eye?     

 

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/1/10/14038902/nfl-teams-hiring-new-head-coach-must-follow-rules

 

It's the 2nd rule listed, so you don't have to scroll down too far.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

There are a lot of coordinators and assistants who haven't been fired yet. It wouldn't surprise me if some of those are kept. If Luck said he wanted to keep his QB coach I highly doubt he would be fired. I just used that as an example.

The strides the defense made this year may warrant some of those coaches to be considered.

All this really does is show what hiring a new head coach involves.

I feel for all the ones involved and their families.

 

Yes...

 

Life in the NFL for coaches is brutal.    Even with the money,  it's still a very hard life.     At his press conference today, Bruce Arians said the Big Moment for him was when his wife told him that their son was turning 40 this year.    And Arians said he had no idea and the news stunned him.     Where did all the years go?

 

And life for an assistant coach can be especially terrible.    Not only do you not see your family,  but if your team does poorly and the HC gets fired,   you could lose your job even if you did a good job because the new HC wants to bring in "his guys"...    coaches he knows...       and so, you have to sell the house,  pack up everything, pull the kids from school and move again.   

 

That's a brutal life and not everyone is cut out for it.      Very high high's but very low low's...    The money only makes it so tolerable.    

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Superman said:

It's obviously a typo. For it to be accurate, two very uncommon situations would have to be true in this case.

 

First, teams don't interview for coordinator jobs until they've hired a head coach, unless they are the Cowboys.

 

Second, teams don't give assistant coaches permission to interview for assistant positions, especially inside the division. 

lmao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a far out thought but If O'Brien remains the head coach maybe he isn't happy with Vrabel.  Maybe they don't mesh for some reason and he will let him interview for a lateral position.  He could always hire another another DC.  The report does spell out defensive coordinator.  That's a big typo.  With all the interviews being bantered about they are for HC positions and with all the people being mentioned so far for the Colts opening this one did come out of left field for me.  He seems like such a long shot to be a serious HC candidate for us when you look at his competition.  Maybe Ballard is intrigued by him and he plans on talking to McDaniels about him when he asks McDaniels about who he is thinking about for DC.  I can see Ballard staying one step ahead in this project. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'm sorry,  but you have me confused.      You stated in a previous post that teams can't block assistants from interviewing for a job that's a promotion and then you write about the Packers blocking their assistant coach from interviewing for a promotion.       So, I'm lost with what you're trying to say....

 

Here is a link that was posted earlier in ths thread which backs up the concept that teams can NOT block an assistant from interviewing for a position that is a promotion.      If that's true, (and I think it is)  then how is Green Bay doing that with Van Pelt?     Feels like there's more to this AVP story than meets the eye?     

 

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/1/10/14038902/nfl-teams-hiring-new-head-coach-must-follow-rules

 

It's the 2nd rule listed, so you don't have to scroll down too far.

 

I was just doing some research into that. It's because the league defines all coaches other than the head coach as an "assistant coach" whether that coach is a positional coach or a play calling coordinator, they're still all assistants to the head coach. Which is why the Packers can continue to deny interviews.

 

at least based on what I'm reading so far

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I was just doing some research into that. It's because the league defines all coaches other than the head coach as an "assistant coach" whether that coach is a positional coach or a play calling coordinator, they're still all assistants to the head coach. Which is why the Packers can continue to deny interviews.

 

at least based on what I'm reading so far

 

Huh?     Wasn't this your link?

 

Here's the section that's applicable to the Green Bay situation....     I'm cutting and pasting.

 

 

Assistant coaches not in the playoffs

Teams can interview any assistant coaches from other teams who are not in the playoffs. They must, however, request permission if a coach is under contract with another team.

 

Teams can block a candidate from interviewing for a position that would be a lateral move, but can’t stop assistant coaches from interviewing for a position that is a promotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'm sorry,  but you have me confused.      You stated in a previous post that teams can't block assistants from interviewing for a job that's a promotion and then you write about the Packers blocking their assistant coach from interviewing for a promotion.       So, I'm lost with what you're trying to say....

 

Here is a link that was posted earlier in ths thread which backs up the concept that teams can NOT block an assistant from interviewing for a position that is a promotion.      If that's true, (and I think it is)  then how is Green Bay doing that with Van Pelt?     Feels like there's more to this AVP story than meets the eye?     

 

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/1/10/14038902/nfl-teams-hiring-new-head-coach-must-follow-rules

 

It's the 2nd rule listed, so you don't have to scroll down too far.

 

 

I didn't say unless it's a promotion, and if I did, I didn't mean to. I consider going from position coach to coordinator a promotion, but the NFL doesn't require a team to allow a coach to interview with another team unless it's for a head coaching job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hoosierhawk said:

you have more knowledge about this than I'm do but from what I have gathered by giving a coach the title of Assistant Head Coach does constitute a promotion. Read it earlier today but now ?I can't find it.

 

Post whatever you find, but I don't think that's accurate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

 

Huh?     Wasn't this your link?

 

Here's the section that's applicable to the Green Bay situation....     I'm cutting and pasting.

 

 

Assistant coaches not in the playoffs

Teams can interview any assistant coaches from other teams who are not in the playoffs. They must, however, request permission if a coach is under contract with another team.

 

Teams can block a candidate from interviewing for a position that would be a lateral move, but can’t stop assistant coaches from interviewing for a position that is a promotion.

Correct.  But what I think you're not grasping and frankly, I'm having trouble doing the same is this language about the promotion. If the league says that a QB coach and a Offensive coordinator are both on the same level, I.E. both are assistant coaches, then the only positions they could interview for without being able to be blocked would be Head Coach, GM or some other front office job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I didn't say unless it's a promotion, and if I did, I didn't mean to. I consider going from position coach to coordinator a promotion, but the NFL doesn't require a team to allow a coach to interview with another team unless it's for a head coaching job. 

According to several places in nfl.com though it is vague, any coach other than the head coach is an assistant coach, the exact title doesn't matter as the league views them all as being assistants and on the same level. 

 

And I could be wrong but that's how I'm understanding it as of now. Which makes little sense as I thought a position coach like a QB coach would be a tier before a coordinator.

 

 

one thing to note with Ballard coming from KC, KC has 25 assistant coaches, including red zone coaches, two minute drill coaches etc. I think I saw that we had 16 total. I could see us following KCs formula 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I didn't say unless it's a promotion, and if I did, I didn't mean to. I consider going from position coach to coordinator a promotion, but the NFL doesn't require a team to allow a coach to interview with another team unless it's for a head coaching job. 

 

????

 

According to this,  your comment is not correct.     Do you have anything to support your statement?      Here is the key passage from a link CSMopar provided....

 

 

Teams can block a candidate from interviewing for a position that would be a lateral move, but can’t stop assistant coaches from interviewing for a position that is a promotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I am no too sure that is correct. There has been plenty of coordinators leave one team to take the same job on other teams.

 

Not if they were under contract.  Once a contract is up, they can do as they please.

 

2 hours ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

And they can't unless it's a promotion like I said 

 

Actually, more than that.  As Supes has said, any coach that is not a HC is an assistant, and can only interview freely if considered for a HC position.  I think at one time offering a 'promotion' could get a guy into the interview room and a deal hammered out.  It's not true anymore.

 

2 hours ago, HectorRoberts said:

Would defensive coordinator/ assistant head coach count as a promotion?

 

Once upon a time, I think yes, not now these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

????

 

According to this,  your comment is not correct.     Do you have anything to support your statement?      Here is the key passage from a link CSMopar provided....

 

 

Teams can block a candidate from interviewing for a position that would be a lateral move, but can’t stop assistant coaches from interviewing for a position that is a promotion.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/heres-a-fix-to-the-nfls-tired-policy-of-blocking-coaches-from-interviews/amp/

 

https://www.windycitygridiron.com/2010/1/14/1249310/rules-pertaining-to-hiring-nfl

 

Two links with good information. 

 

Also, if you google "NFL anti tampering policy pdf dawgtalkers," the first result is a PDF link to an official policy from the NFL from 2009. Page 7 says this:

 

 "Under Contract After Season. If an assistant coach’s playing season, 
including postseason if applicable (excluding Pro Bowl), is over and he is 
under contract to his club for the succeeding season or seasons, one of the 
provisions below—“Head-Coaching Opportunity” or “Lateral Move”—
whichever is applicable, must be observed: 
1. Two Tiers of Coaching Staffs. For purposes of this Anti-Tampering Policy, 
each coaching staff is divided into two tiers: (1) head coach, and (2) all assistant 
coaches. 
Although each individual club is permitted to use whatever structure and titles it 
desires for its coaching staff, the two tiers described here will be adhered to for 
administration of this Policy.

 

...

 

3. Lateral Move. If a club is interested in discussing an assistant coaching 
position with an assistant coach who is contractually obligated to another 
club at any time prior to the opening of the employer club’s training 
camp, it will be considered a lateral move, and the employer club is under 
no obligation to grant the coach the opportunity to discuss the position 
with the interested club. At the discretion of the employer club, however, 
such permission may be voluntarily granted."

 

I'd link but I'm on mobile and can't copy the link directly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

I think Sup that what NewColtFan posted is the answer. An Assistant Head Coach/OC is a promotion over a OC.

Nope, it's not.... according to NFL dot com,  any coach that is not a Head Coach is deemed to be an ASSISTANT COACH. Does not matter if that is a towel boy coach or the OC it's still an Assistant coach . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/heres-a-fix-to-the-nfls-tired-policy-of-blocking-coaches-from-interviews/amp/

 

https://www.windycitygridiron.com/2010/1/14/1249310/rules-pertaining-to-hiring-nfl

 

Two links with good information. 

 

Also, if you google "NFL anti tampering policy pdf dawgtalkers," the first result is a PDF link to an official policy from the NFL from 2009. Page 7 says this:

 

 "Under Contract After Season. If an assistant coach’s playing season, 
including postseason if applicable (excluding Pro Bowl), is over and he is 
under contract to his club for the succeeding season or seasons, one of the 
provisions below—“Head-Coaching Opportunity” or “Lateral Move”—
whichever is applicable, must be observed: 
1. Two Tiers of Coaching Staffs. For purposes of this Anti-Tampering Policy, 
each coaching staff is divided into two tiers: (1) head coach, and (2) all assistant 
coaches. 
Although each individual club is permitted to use whatever structure and titles it 
desires for its coaching staff, the two tiers described here will be adhered to for 
administration of this Policy.

 

...

 

3. Lateral Move. If a club is interested in discussing an assistant coaching 
position with an assistant coach who is contractually obligated to another 
club at any time prior to the opening of the employer club’s training 
camp, it will be considered a lateral move, and the employer club is under 
no obligation to grant the coach the opportunity to discuss the position 
with the interested club. At the discretion of the employer club, however, 
such permission may be voluntarily granted."

 

I'd link but I'm on mobile and can't copy the link directly. 

That's what I found as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

????

 

According to this,  your comment is not correct.     Do you have anything to support your statement?      Here is the key passage from a link CSMopar provided....

 

 

Teams can block a candidate from interviewing for a position that would be a lateral move, but can’t stop assistant coaches from interviewing for a position that is a promotion.

Again.... ALL COACHES that are not the Head Coach are assistant coaches..... therefore any move between position coach and coordinator would be a lateral move that a club can block.  Not sure why you keep ignoring me telling you that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Again.... ALL COACHES that are not the Head Coach are assistant coaches..... therefore any move between position coach and coordinator would be a lateral move that a club can block.  Not sure why you keep ignoring me telling you that. 

 

You're not sure why?

 

Because the link YOU first provided doesn't say that.    That's why.

 

Now, these NEW links you and Superman have provided cleared that up.   Turns out the first link you provided is wrong.   Not your fault, no way of knowing. 

 

But the the situation is now cleared up.   Frankly I'm stunned at the NFL rule.

 

All assistants are assistants regardless of whether they're coordinators or position coaches?   Seriously?    I think that sucks and is just wrong.   But I don't get a vote...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You're not sure why?

 

Because the link YOU first provided doesn't say that.    That's why.

 

Now, these NEW links you and Superman have provided cleared that up.   Turns out the first link you provided is wrong.   Not your fault, no way of knowing. 

 

But the the situation is now cleared up.   Frankly I'm stunned at the NFL rule.

 

All assistants are assistants regardless of whether they're coordinators or position coaches?   Seriously?    I think that sucks and is just wrong.   But I don't get a vote...

 

The first link isn't wrong. It says they can't be blocked if the position is for a promotion. It just doesn't clarify that there is only two tiers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

But the the situation is now cleared up.   Frankly I'm stunned at the NFL rule.

 

All assistants are assistants regardless of whether they're coordinators or position coaches?   Seriously?    I think that sucks and is just wrong.   But I don't get a vote...

 

 

Really that's what my original point was. I don't consider going from position coach to coordinator to be a lateral move, but per the rule, it is. 

 

The reason why is to avoid any ambiguity that goes along with made up job titles. Like "Coordinator of the Defensive Backs." 

 

They cleared up the GM rule recently also, making it clear that a promotion includes a job with full roster control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Really that's what my original point was. I don't consider going from position coach to coordinator to be a lateral move, but per the rule, it is. 

 

The reason why is to avoid any ambiguity that goes along with made up job titles. Like "Coordinator of the Defensive Backs." 

 

They cleared up the GM rule recently also, making it clear that a promotion includes a job with full roster control. 

So basically the owners made these rules to control the "coordinators" from moving while under contract? With the exception of a head coaching job?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why Vrabel would move from Coordinating a defense with Clowney and Watt (when he's healthy) to coordinating the Colts defense.  

 

On top of that it doesn't makes sense that we would bring in a DC without a HC.  HC would probably want to have a say in who his DC is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

So basically the owners made these rules to control the "coordinators" from moving while under contract? With the exception of a head coaching job?

 

Essentially, it seems, yes. Keeps contract coaches at home. Even if other teams offer more money to do the same job.

 

4 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Gruden’s expected to take Cincy’s DC to Oakland with him, so it’s definitely not unprecedented.

 

Does the Cincy DC contract expire at the end of the Bengals season? If not, has Cincy granted Raiders permission to interview the guy?  Even Jon Gruden can’t go and cherry pick his coaching staff from the top levels from each team if they are under contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

So basically the owners made these rules to control the "coordinators" from moving while under contract? With the exception of a head coaching job?

 

To protect coaching staffs from being poached, period. And I get that, but it's overly restrictive, IMO, and actually prevents coaches from making career advancement.

 

Of course, if a team wants a coach badly enough, they can offer compensation for him. So if we really, really wanted a position coach or a coordinator from another team for a similar position on the Colts, we could offer the other team a draft pick or a player in exchange for the coach. But that basically never happens. Last trade I'm aware of for a coach at any level was Gruden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When do contracts expire? At the end of a particular team's games for the year? On a particular date on the calendar? Has Vrable's contract expired?

 

The biggest thing against this possibility being likely is that I really don't see Ballard hiring a coordinator before the new HC can be involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I don't necessarily disagree. I do think there's a double standard, though. When it's a positive report about a player we like, it's fine. When it's a negative report about a player we don't like, it's validating. We eat all of that up, all through draft season, no problem. But when it's a negative report about player we like, now the practice is unfair.   It's a shrug for me all the way around, though. If it's a topic I care about, I'll dig and try to get past the surface, and make a determination on how I feel about the substance of the reports.     What do you mean?
    • I mostly agree. I think there might be teams that had him highly graded, but went in a different direction. The first round was wacky. And maybe for some of those teams, it was a coin flip between AD and another player, and maybe the concerns about maturity were the deciding factor.   There are other teams -- like the Colts, IMO -- that generally don't value WR as a first round position, which is not necessarily a reflection of the individual player. Maybe the Colts would have taken one of the top three guys if they were in range, because they're that good, but generally, that's not how the Colts handle the position.    Your other thoughts are definitely valid as well. It's not like he's the perfect physical prospect, he didn't have outstanding college production, some of the advanced stuff doesn't look great, etc. I don't think he's the 11th best WR prospect in this class, there are several players I think he should have gone ahead of. But it's not like he's a top five prospect who dropped to the middle of the second round. The Colts don't see it that way either, otherwise they wouldn't have traded back to #52. Speaking of top five prospects dropping, there were some unsourced rumors about Malik Nabers' character before the draft; he still got drafted where everyone expected him to be drafted.    So yeah, I don't think these reports torpedoed AD's draft stock. Maybe the character concerns played a role, but I don't think these reports are the source of those concerns; I think it's the other way around. 
    • I never had reservations about his comments. I thought he was making a strong point in backing the player, not the pick. I took it as if the only person he wanted to hear it was Mitchell. Back your new player publicly over concerns that clearly led him to fall in the draft. I don't think that's a crazy statement to state either, that Mitchell undoubtedly fell because of the reports. I'm pretty confident he goes higher, if not first round, without that report/commentary.      He might have even liked Mitchell, and strategically put it out there to get a great value pick... Here's a crazy thought, it could have even been a Colts scout, or connection to one. 🙃
    • I agree here. There were legit football reasons for teams to not be in love with Mitchell based on his play and some of his indicators that a lot of people seem to value were not great.  I don't know how to parse what Destin is selling here. I'm not sure you can be certain those reports changed anything in team's evaluation of Mitchell. He's presenting anecdotal evidence that teams starting asking more about his diabetes after those reports. Again... not sure if this is factual or it just was more noticeable after those reports? Who knows...      Let me summarize my view in short -  I don't think the reports are made up. Someone told McGinn those things. There might be some truth to it. To me it looks very one sided. My whole contention here has been about that. Do you just print anything and everything someone tells you without asking for comment from your subject?   Just go and read the whole thing again,,, the diabetes part, the uncoachable, immaturity part, the combine part(this one we can actually see with our own eyes and I can absolutely tell you the characterization of what happened is preposterous). If a scout under me really had those opinions about what transpired in those drills, I personally would question every single thing he's telling me.     On the other examples of rumors/reports about other players(Caleb, Levis, Stroud) - absolutely, if you are going to disparage the character of any of those players the very least you must do is ask them for a comment. The fact that this practice of just throwing rocks and hiding hands and not even giving the opportunity of the target to respond, is prevalent in today's draft media, doesn't make it right.   Also, I still want to underline something here... there is obvious conflict of interest here that I still haven't seen anyone address.     
    • I understand where you're coming from. It's not my intention to call out everyone who doesn't like how the AD stuff was handled. It just seems like typical draft season stuff to me, which everyone peddles in every year, but now that it's a highly drafted Colts pick, we're raising the standard.    Wasn't it 'unnamed sources' who claimed Caleb Williams didn't want to play for the Bears, or wanted ownership equity, etc.? Weren't 'unnamed sources' repeated when questions about Levis' personality started to float around? To me, some stuff is either factual, or it's not -- it's a fact that AD has diabetes. Other stuff is opinion/projection -- rude, abrasive, immature, uncoachable -- and should be treated as such.    The AD stuff was a mix of both. He has diabetes, the claim is that it has affected his ability to practice. Either that's true or it's not. I don't find it hard to believe, since AD definitely has diabetes, and that kind of stuff is typical of a young person with that condition. Someone else might view it differently, but we're never going to get anyone to corroborate that stuff on the record. One of the scouts said he has bad character reports from Georgia and Texas, which isn't going to be validated by anyone in the know, but it's hard to imagine someone just making that up. And that scout -- who I think was the harshest -- also said that when AD's blood sugar is right, he's great. So to me, he offered a reasonable explanation, and I don't think he came across as someone who dislikes AD or would have him as a character red flag. I think there was nuance that doesn't get fully considered when this stuff gets repeated.   Even maturity is a spectrum, not a black and white consideration. A person -- especially at a young age -- might be incredibly responsible in one area of their life, while still figuring things out in another area. One person might see something as immature, and another has no problem with it. So a source gave an opinion, and I think it should be treated like one person's opinion, and not a rubber-stamped designation that the monolithic scouting community has agreed upon.   And I don't think that Bob McGinn's collection of quotes from unnamed sources impacts how teams handle their draft board. I think McGinn is getting this stuff from people who work for teams; the teams already have the info. So I don't see the quotes as affecting AD's draft stock. It would have been balanced to offer some counter quotes, if those were available, but I don't think the quotes are as negative as they seem from the headlines.    My only reservations about Ballard's presser is that it seemed like an "outburst," but knowing that he kind of did the same thing last year, I think it was sincere, and he did it for the right reasons. Without that background, he might have come across as being petty and unprofessional, but context is important.   Short version: I don't think the reports are made up, I think there's probably some truth to them. And I assume the Colts did their homework, because that's how they operate. So if they're comfortable with AD Mitchell and have a plan to help him succeed, I have no concerns about it. 
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...