Ballard will be on Dakich today

[Yoshinator]

54 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I'm gonna throw a bone out here for you and @Jared Cisneros to chew on: 

 

What if Ballard knew Andrew wasn't going to play last year way back when they were saying he should be fine by week 1, so Ballard didn't address the OLine on purpose knowing he needed to start building his 4-3 defense early so it could transition quickly to catch up with a Luck-led offense THIS year, when he could quickly assemble an OLine in one offseason for Lucks triumphant 2018 return?  Would you be mad that he misled us all last year to keep ticket sales up for his owner during a losing season, in a grand scheme to become a winning ballclub THIS year, and increase profits even more in only his second year as GM?

 

He may of not addressed the O-Line last year because he liked the Talent in FA and/or the draft. I know he held Luck out last year so he could get fully healthy and didn't care about what people thought of him. Obviously Luck is back, and we drafted a generational G and another very good one. My problem was that they were leading us on that Luck may be healthy and coming back last year instead of admitting they are holding him out for the year. I don't mind bad news, but I at least appreciate honesty, and Ballard was only honest after the fact when Luck seems to be 100% back to himself  and there won't be any backlash now.

[DougDew]

45 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I'm gonna throw a bone out here for you and @Jared Cisneros to chew on: 

 

What if Ballard knew Andrew wasn't going to play last year way back when they were saying he should be fine by week 1, so Ballard didn't address the OLine on purpose knowing he needed to start building his 4-3 defense early so it could transition quickly to catch up with a Luck-led offense THIS year, when he could quickly assemble an OLine in one offseason for Lucks triumphant 2018 return?  Would you be mad that he misled us all last year to keep ticket sales up for his owner during a losing season, in a grand scheme to become a winning ballclub THIS year, and increase profits even more in only his second year as GM?

 

 

Huh?   I've never said one word about anybody saying anything for the purpose of ticket sales.  I think folks who think that are way out of line.

 

Simply because I couldn't imagine anybody being stupid enough to buy tickets based upon Ballard or Irsay saying Luck would be ready, and I'm not sure they even said it in terms of actually knowing.  I always took their comments as wishful thinking.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Actually drafting Hooker at #15 was the right move assuming he gets healthy. We needed so much help on Defense that it was pick your poison Chris LOL. He addressed the O.Line greatly this offseason.

So what you're saying is:  When a GM has a lot of holes in the roster to fill, he can't devote high resources to every position at the same time.  I assume you mean when the GM has no cap space to work with and not $60 million of it.

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

So what you're saying is:  When a GM has a lot of holes in the roster to fill, he can't devote high resources to every position at the same time.  I assume you mean when the GM has no cap space to work with and not $60 million of it.

You can't address every issue in one offseason is what I am saying. Our Defense was so bad on paper that he chose to address that 1st. This offseason he addressed the O.Line more. Grigson left the team in a mess, so it will take Ballard at least another offseason after this one to get this team contending again. How can anyone blame Ballard for anything yet? He has had 2 offseason's so far. Drafting Hooker and Nelson are A+ picks IMO. Ballard is just being Ballard when he blames himself for anything so far being a nice guy.

[Cynjin]

48 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'll say it more precisely.  He says that not addressing the oline last year was a screw up.  Nobody holds it against him, and actually make positive comments about him simply because he stated the obvious.  

 

I think that's amazing given the history of this forum and how it treats GMs decisions.  I guess since it was Brissett getting beat up, not addressing the oline last year doesn't matter.

 

It seems to me he is taking responsibility for something that to a great extent was out of his control due to the fact it was his first year, injuries, and having a coaching and scouting staff not of his choosing.  The Colts last year were bereft of talent in many areas, I doubt he could have fixed every one of those in one offseason.

 

I'm not sure why you seem to think that just because it was Jacoby behind center that Ballard didn't care.  On the contrary it seems to me that he is quite happy with Brissett and glad he traded for him.  Or maybe you are referring to this forum, that's possible, but there are a lot of things said about players on this forum that make little sense.  One that I disagree with is when posters call players trash.

 

I agree that this forum in general jumps to conclusions regarding GM decisions and for that matter pretty much any decision made be the Colts.

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

It seems to me he is taking responsibility for something that to a great extent was out of his control due to the fact it was his first year, injuries, and having a coaching and scouting staff not of his choosing.  The Colts last year were bereft of talent in many areas, I doubt he could have fixed every one of those in one offseason.

 

I'm not sure why you seem to think that just because it was Jacoby behind center that Ballard didn't care.  On the contrary it seems to me that he is quite happy with Brissett and glad he traded for him.  Or maybe you are referring to this forum, that's possible, but there are a lot of things said about players on this forum that make little sense.  One that I disagree with is when posters call players trash.

 

I agree that this forum in general jumps to conclusions regarding GM decisions and for that matter pretty much any decision made be the Colts.

I agree.

[Superman]

53 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

It seems to me he is taking responsibility for something that to a great extent was out of his control due to the fact it was his first year, injuries, and having a coaching and scouting staff not of his choosing.  The Colts last year were bereft of talent in many areas, I doubt he could have fixed every one of those in one offseason.

 

I'm not sure why you seem to think that just because it was Jacoby behind center that Ballard didn't care.  On the contrary it seems to me that he is quite happy with Brissett and glad he traded for him.  Or maybe you are referring to this forum, that's possible, but there are a lot of things said about players on this forum that make little sense.  One that I disagree with is when posters call players trash.

 

I agree that this forum in general jumps to conclusions regarding GM decisions and for that matter pretty much any decision made be the Colts.

 

This is part of DD's defend Grigson crusade. 

[Cynjin]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is part of DD's defend Grigson crusade. 

 

Yeah, I'm not sure why he defends Grigson the way he does.  Not that it was entirely Grigson's fault for the way it turned out, but it is hard to look at his record on personnel decisions and say that it was a rousing success.  Just the draft picks alone, and not how many didn't work out in Indy, but how many didn't work out anywhere.

[NewColtsFan]

On 8/4/2018 at 7:00 AM, DougDew said:

Wow.  Ballard screws up the Oline last year, not addressing it, and every body loves him.  Amazing.

 

They love him because he’s being accountable to fans who want to know what happened.

 

They love him because he didn’t throw anybody under the bus.    He didn’t blame the OL coach and he likely took Philbin’s view into account.   He didn’t blame Chud or any scout.

 

He didn’t blame either the FA guard who he signed or the rookie tackle who he drafted neither of which worked out.

 

Remember, Irsay told everyone the line was fixed last summer.   Promised everyone.   That was the view in the building.

 

Ballard took the bullet himself —-  because he can.  He’s still in the honeymoon phase.   People believe we’re heading in the right direction.  People aren’t looking to crush the guy because he didn’t fix a terrible mess in his first year.

 

Give the guy a chance.   Maybe Ballard and his team are better than you think...

[richard pallo]

Ballard DID address the OL last year with Zach Banner a 4th. rounder.  4th. rounders  are supposed to make your team.  Not get cut right out of the gate.  I would say that qualifies as a big whiff in my book.  

[NewColtsFan]

7 hours ago, DougDew said:

Wow.  Ballard screws up the Oline last year, not addressing it, and every body loves him.  Amazing.

 

Doug.....

 

People love Ballard here for a variety of reasons...

 

One,  he's a stand-up guy.    He's taking the heat for what went wrong with the OL.    He's a GM, so ultimately he's to blame.   Let's remember, a year ago, Irsay publicly proclaimed the O-line was fixed.   Promised it was finally done.    That was the view inside the building.   But let's be honest,  Ballard could've thrown a whole bunch of people under the bus,  and he didn't.

 

He could've thrown former coaches under the bus.   I'm confident he relied heavily on Joe Philbin's input, as he should have.   He was the OL coach and highly respected.    He hand picked a bunch of the OL and had been coaching them.   Evereything went wrong.   But Ballard didn't.    He couldn't thrown Chud under the bus.   He used an old school offensive system that relied on long, slow developing plays that put stress on the OL.   It failed spectacularly and Chud didn't alter.    But Ballard didn't.

 

He couldn't thrown the players under the bus,  some of whom are still on the team.   But he didn't.   Ballard signed a veteran OL in free agency who didn't work out.   His lone draft pick in an historically poor OL draft class didn't work out.   He couldn've buried them.   But Ballard didn't.  

 

Ballard is taking the bullet.  He can afford to.   He is still on his honeymoon phase and the perception seems to be he's a good guy and he knows what he's doing.   He's getting the benefit of the doubt.  

 

Ballard has said repeatedly that this wasn't going to be a simple, quick fix.   Not going to be a fast turnaround.    He asked for three years.   He's half-way through Year 2.     He's asking to see how the team looks after the 2019 season.   That appears to be fine with Irsay.    It appears to be fine with most here who recognize he inherited a big mess. 

 

Give the man a chance.    You might see that he's got an idea of what he's doing.

[DougDew]

17 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Doug.....

 

People love Ballard here for a variety of reasons...

 

One,  he's a stand-up guy.    He's taking the heat for what went wrong with the OL.    He's a GM, so ultimately he's to blame.   Let's remember, a year ago, Irsay publicly proclaimed the O-line was fixed.   Promised it was finally done.    That was the view inside the building.   But let's be honest,  Ballard could've thrown a whole bunch of people under the bus,  and he didn't.

 

He could've thrown former coaches under the bus.   I'm confident he relied heavily on Joe Philbin's input, as he should have.   He was the OL coach and highly respected.    He hand picked a bunch of the OL and had been coaching them.   Evereything went wrong.   But Ballard didn't.    He couldn't thrown Chud under the bus.   He used an old school offensive system that relied on long, slow developing plays that put stress on the OL.   It failed spectacularly and Chud didn't alter.    But Ballard didn't.

 

He couldn't thrown the players under the bus,  some of whom are still on the team.   But he didn't.   Ballard signed a veteran OL in free agency who didn't work out.   His lone draft pick in an historically poor OL draft class didn't work out.   He couldn've buried them.   But Ballard didn't.  

 

Ballard is taking the bullet.  He can afford to.   He is still on his honeymoon phase and the perception seems to be he's a good guy and he knows what he's doing.   He's getting the benefit of the doubt.  

 

Ballard has said repeatedly that this wasn't going to be a simple, quick fix.   Not going to be a fast turnaround.    He asked for three years.   He's half-way through Year 2.     He's asking to see how the team looks after the 2019 season.   That appears to be fine with Irsay.    It appears to be fine with most here who recognize he inherited a big mess. 

 

Give the man a chance.    You might see that he's got an idea of what he's doing.

I like "what he's doing", overall.  Never said I didn't.  Failing to kneel down and praise someone is not the same thing as "not liking".

 

I especially like the fact that he's been allowed to move the offense and defense into the modern era, and making good decisions to get there (with the exception of the big McDaniels whiff). 

 

I don't know how he would do if given a mandate to acquire players to fit outdated offense and defensive schemes and be saddled with a HC he didn't think much of. 

 

As far as this specific topic: He said that he failed to properly address the line.  Something this forum has said about the FO before, yet they spin it in their own minds like it doesn't matter simply because its Ballard and he admitted it.

 

[DougDew]

22 hours ago, Superman said:

 

This is part of DD's defend Grigson crusade. 

No.  I hate bias and the echo chamber it creates.  

 

If you look at the football decisions under similar circumstances, neither Ballards or Grigsons are that far apart.

 

When they defend Ballard for not addressing the oline last year, and had to use valuable draft picks this year, they'll forget he had $60 million in cap space. (when they believe all it takes for a team to buy an oline is cap space).

 

(BTW, who's playing RT this year?)

 

When they see Luck taking fewer sacks this season, they'll say what a great draft pick Nelson was, not because Luck's getting rid of the ball quicker. 

 

If they admit Luck is getting sacked less because he is getting rid of the ball quicker, they'll say what a genius Ballard is for hiring Reich, totally forgetting that his first choice was the embarrasing Josh McDaniels. 

 

When they say that at least Ballard was trying to change the schemes, and that Grigson hired Chud; they won't see the obvious that Grigson was never in a position to fire Chud because he was protected by Pagano, and he couldn't fire Pagano because Irsay retained the authority to join them at the hip and to unjoin them.

 

They will never acknowledge that Grigson meddled (appropriately, BTW) because he realized early on that Chuck was incompetent, but knew that you can't fire the creator of the ChuckStrong Angle. 

 

Instead, their memory of how Grigson treated local media and his overall personality are big data points for evaluating his football decisions.

 

The atmosphere in a echo chamber can easily reposition what "center" is.  Just like in politics, when certain circles have shifted the center Left in their world, something truly center seems extremely Right. And visa versa, in theory.

 

In this biased echo chamber, not hating Grigson is seen as defending him.  Not praising Ballard is seen as "not liking" what he's doing.   

 

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

No.  I hate bias and the echo chamber it creates.  

 

If you look at the football decisions under similar circumstances, neither Ballards or Grigsons are that far apart.

 

When they defend Ballard for not addressing the oline last year, and had to use valuable draft picks this year, they'll forget he had $60 million in cap space. (when they believe all it takes for a team to buy an oline is cap space).

 

(BTW, who's playing RT this year?)

 

When they see Luck taking fewer sacks this season, they'll say what a great draft pick Nelson was, not because Luck's getting rid of the ball quicker. 

 

If they admit Luck is getting sacked less because he is getting rid of the ball quicker, they'll say what a genius Ballard is for hiring Reich, totally forgetting that his first choice was the embarrasing Josh McDaniels. 

 

When they say that at least Ballard was trying to change the schemes, and that Grigson hired Chud; they won't see the obvious that Grigson was never in a position to fire Chud because he was protected by Pagano, and he couldn't fire Pagano because Irsay retained the authority to join them at the hip and to unjoin them.

 

They will never acknowledge that Grigson meddled (appropriately, BTW) because he realized early on that Chuck was incompetent, but knew that you can't fire the creator of the ChuckStrong Angle. 

 

Instead, their memory of how Grigson treated local media and his overall personality are big data points for evaluating his football decisions.

 

The atmosphere in a echo chamber can easily reposition what "center" is.  Just like in politics, when certain circles have shifted the center Left in their world, something truly center seems extremely Right. And visa versa, in theory.

 

In this biased echo chamber, not hating Grigson is seen as defending him.  Not praising Ballard is seen as "not liking" what he's doing.   

 

 

Wowza!!

 

This is a level of paranoia and revisionist history that’s unprecidented  even for you, Doug.

 

Your response to my post was one thing...     but THIS?!?

 

Holy Cow?!?

 

[DougDew]

20 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Wowza!!

 

This is a level of paranoia and revisionist history that’s unprecidented  even for you, Doug.

 

Your response to my post was one thing...     but THIS?!?

 

Holy Cow?!?

 

This is a level of drama that's not unprecedented for you, but would be for everybody else.  Combining the idea of paranoia with football seems pretty dramatic.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[throwing BBZ]

On 8/3/2018 at 3:54 PM, richard pallo said:

He could have let Smith develop behind Slausen.  Slausen and Howard are both vets earmarked to start.  Now he stated he has asked Smith to play RT.  That sounds like they are thinking they want RT to be his permanent position.  Otherwise why do it ?  Just let him overtake Slauson when he's ready if they want him to be the RG.  To me moving him behind Howard is a signal that they want RT to be his home.  

 

Not at all.
 He just knows he does not want to count on Good or Haeg out there.
Haeg is too weak, and Good is fat, slow and injury prone.
Preparing Smith to dress on Sundays as the backup G and at RT is just wise.
 

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

Not at all.
 He just knows he does not want to count on Good or Haeg out there.
Haeg is too weak, and Good is fat, slow and injury prone.
 

Agreed.  The problem is that every other RT can be described that way, so Smith should get a lot of time at RT. 

 

Slauson is on a 1 year contract (I think), so look for a long term RT to be acquired next offseason, and Smith will then take over for Slauson.  Unless Smith lights it up at RT.

[Superman]

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

In this biased echo chamber, not hating Grigson is seen as defending him.  Not praising Ballard is seen as "not liking" what he's doing.   

 

 

This is horse manure. 

 

I spent a lot of time defending Grigson, not in the name of 'he's doing a good job,' but more like 'why not wait and see what happens?' I pushed back against the biased echo chamber for a long time.

 

But in this thread, you've decided to pit Ballard against Grigson, and there's really no need to do so. We could go through Grigson's decisions on a micro level, and while I can reasonably defend many of them in a vacuum, it's not relevant. Stepping back and looking at the big picture, it's obvious that he didn't do a good job building a team. You're acting like it's unfair to be critical of Grigson, and it's not.

 

And more to the point, acknowledging that Grigson didn't do a good job isn't the same as praising Ballard. You don't have to be a fan of Ballard to think Grigson wasn't a good GM, and you don't have be critical of Ballard to defend Grigson.

 

The reason Ballard isn't being raked over the coals yet -- and there are some who find a way to blame him for plenty -- is that his decisions haven't played out yet. Grigson's have, and the outcome was bad. 

 

I'd love to discuss the Ballard's decisions regarding the OL last year, but I think you just want to be contrary.

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is horse manure. 

 

I spent a lot of time defending Grigson, not in the name of 'he's doing a good job,' but more like 'why not wait and see what happens?' I pushed back against the biased echo chamber for a long time.

 

But in this thread, you've decided to pit Ballard against Grigson, and there's really no need to do so. We could go through Grigson's decisions on a micro level, and while I can reasonably defend many of them in a vacuum, it's not relevant. Stepping back and looking at the big picture, it's obvious that he didn't do a good job building a team. You're acting like it's unfair to be critical of Grigson, and it's not.

 

And more to the point, acknowledging that Grigson didn't do a good job isn't the same as praising Ballard. You don't have to be a fan of Ballard to think Grigson wasn't a good GM, and you don't have be critical of Ballard to defend Grigson.

 

The reason Ballard isn't being raked over the coals yet -- and there are some who find a way to blame him for plenty -- is that his decisions haven't played out yet. Grigson's have, and the outcome was bad. 

 

I'd love to discuss the Ballard's decisions regarding the OL last year, but I think you just want to be contrary.

You accuse me of being on some sort of crusade to defend Grigson.  That was horse manure.

 

All I did was point out the following.

 

Person A does the same thing as person B under the same circumstances, yet person A gets criticized and person B gets a pass.  Pointing that out does not constitute a crusade to defend person A.  It points out an off-center bias on the part of the people doing the criticizing,  and giving the pass. 

 

When people want to defend their bias, and not get into the discussion of details of each circumstance of each decision each year, they say "didn't do enough to address".  Exactly the words Ballard is getting the pass on.  Exactly.

 

 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You accuse me of being on some sort of crusade to defend Grigson.  That was horse manure.

 

No it isn't. Your pro-Grigson crusade didn't just start in this thread, it's been going on for a least a couple years now.

 

Quote

 

All I did was point out the following.

 

Person A does the same thing as person B under the same circumstances, yet person A gets criticized and person B gets a pass.  Pointing that out does not constitute a crusade to defend person A.  It points out an off-center bias on the part of the people doing the criticizing,  and giving the pass. 

 

 

I disagree with the bolded. Grigson and Ballard haven't faced the same circumstances, nor have they approached them the same way. 

 

I will acknowledge that there's plenty of anti-Grigson bias here, but will you acknowledge that Grigson did a bad job of acquiring good offensive linemen?

 

I will also acknowledge that for a lot of people, Ballard being 'not Grigson' is enough, at least for now. But will you acknowledge that Ballard was saddled with a coaching staff that a) vouched for young players that wound up not playing well last season, and b) ran an offensive scheme that made things harder for the linemen?
 

Quote

 

When people want to defend their bias, and not get into the discussion of details of each circumstance of each decision each year, they say "didn't do enough to address".  Exactly the words Ballard is getting the pass on.  Exactly.

 

 

Yeah, let's start with the fact that Grigson failed with the offensive line for five seasons, while Ballard is in Year 2. Grigson's story is done, his book is closed, and we can judge it on its merits. There's no reason to even compare the two at this point. 

[DougDew]

57 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No it isn't. Your pro-Grigson crusade didn't just start in this thread, it's been going on for a least a couple years now.

 

 

I disagree with the bolded. Grigson and Ballard haven't faced the same circumstances, nor have they approached them the same way. 

 

I will acknowledge that there's plenty of anti-Grigson bias here, but will you acknowledge that Grigson did a bad job of acquiring good offensive linemen?

 

I will also acknowledge that for a lot of people, Ballard being 'not Grigson' is enough, at least for now. But will you acknowledge that Ballard was saddled with a coaching staff that a) vouched for young players that wound up not playing well last season, and b) ran an offensive scheme that made things harder for the linemen?
 

 

Yeah, let's start with the fact that Grigson failed with the offensive line for five seasons, while Ballard is in Year 2. Grigson's story is done, his book is closed, and we can judge it on its merits. There's no reason to even compare the two at this point. 

I didn't bring up Grigson.  He's old news and I don't care about him or where he is.   He didn't seek the media, unlike Polian, or even Tobin (who both had their own radio shows {as does Ballard I think}) so I never figured why he personally was in the conversation target so much by the media and fans, and why he got blame or credit for everything. 

 

Maybe because he never had his own show, and was aloof more so than what the media and fans want a GM to be, it was easy to hate him as soon as he made a few bad decisions.

 

Bias can matter when talking about sacks, Nelson, Hooker, Wilson, etc. this coming season.  "Failure to adequately address" was a statement made to support criticism in the past.  But not now, apparently.

 

To answer your question:  Similar circumstances would be that when RG had the opportunity to draft at #18, he drafted a immediate starter at C.  He drafted Mewhort in the second.  Ballard has drafted Nelson at 6, and Smith in the second.  Grigson drafted bad olinemen in the 4th, and Ballard drafted Banner.  Grigson's FA acquisitions were with no real salary cap.  Ballard didn't spend the cap he had. 

 

Yes, Grigson acquired bad olinemen.  And Ballard acquired Vujnovich.  Grigson acquired more bad ones than Ballard.  RG was also GM for more years than Ballard so far. 

 

As far as I'm concerned, I call that simply pointing out facts.  I guess some see that as a defense of someone you're not supposed to defend.

 

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I didn't bring up Grigson.  He's old news and I don't care about him or where he is.   He didn't seek the media, unlike Polian, or even Tobin (who both had their own radio shows {as does Ballard I think}) so I never figured why he personally was in the conversation target so much by the media and fans, and why he got blame or credit for everything. 

 

Maybe because he never had his own show, and was aloof more so than what the media and fans want a GM to be, it was easy to hate him as soon as he made a few bad decisions.

 

Bias can matter when talking about sacks, Nelson, Hooker, Wilson, etc. this coming season.  "Failure to adequately address" was a statement made to support criticism in the past.  But not now, apparently.

 

To answer your question:  Similar circumstances would be that when RG had the opportunity to draft at #18, he drafted a immediate starter at C.  He drafted Mewhort in the second.  Ballard has drafted Nelson at 6, and Smith in the second.  Grigson drafted bad olinemen in the 4th, and Ballard drafted Banner.  Grigson's FA acquisitions were with no real salary cap.  Ballard didn't spend the cap he had. 

 

Yes, Grigson acquired bad olinemen.  And Ballard acquired Vujnovich.  Grigson acquired more bad ones than Ballard.  RG was also GM for more years than Ballard so far. 

 

As far as I'm concerned, I call that simply pointing out facts.  I guess some see that as a defense of someone you're not supposed to defend.

 

Are you off your meds again?

[DougDew]

21 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Are you off your meds again?

Getting that post count up again eh? 

 

BTW, of your thousands of posts, how many display more in depth analysis than what is capable of a    ?  They're always about two sentences long, IIRC.

 

I can't type slower, you're just going to have to read slower.  

 

I didn't bring up Grigson.  He's old news and I don't care about him or where he is.   He didn't seek the media, unlike Polian, or even Tobin (who both had their own radio shows {as does Ballard I think}) so I never figured why he personally was in the conversation target so much by the media and fans, and why he got blame or credit for everything. 

 

Maybe because he never had his own show, and was aloof more so than what the media and fans want a GM to be, it was easy to hate him as soon as he made a few bad decisions.

 

Bias can matter when talking about sacks, Nelson, Hooker, Wilson, etc. this coming season.  "Failure to adequately address" was a statement made to support criticism in the past.  But not now, apparently.

 

To answer your question:  Similar circumstances would be that when RG had the opportunity to draft at #18, he drafted a immediate starter at C.  He drafted Mewhort in the second.  Ballard has drafted Nelson at 6, and Smith in the second.  Grigson drafted bad olinemen in the 4th, and Ballard drafted Banner.  Grigson's FA acquisitions were with no real salary cap.  Ballard didn't spend the cap he had. 

 

Yes, Grigson acquired bad olinemen.  And Ballard acquired Vujnovich.  Grigson acquired more bad ones than Ballard.  RG was also GM for more years than Ballard so far. 

 

As far as I'm concerned, I call that simply pointing out facts.  I guess some see that as a defense of someone you're not supposed to defend.

[NewColtsFan]

9 hours ago, DougDew said:

No.  I hate bias and the echo chamber it creates.  

 

If you look at the football decisions under similar circumstances, neither Ballards or Grigsons are that far apart.

 

When they defend Ballard for not addressing the oline last year, and had to use valuable draft picks this year, they'll forget he had $60 million in cap space. (when they believe all it takes for a team to buy an oline is cap space).

 

(BTW, who's playing RT this year?)

 

When they see Luck taking fewer sacks this season, they'll say what a great draft pick Nelson was, not because Luck's getting rid of the ball quicker. 

 

If they admit Luck is getting sacked less because he is getting rid of the ball quicker, they'll say what a genius Ballard is for hiring Reich, totally forgetting that his first choice was the embarrasing Josh McDaniels. 

 

When they say that at least Ballard was trying to change the schemes, and that Grigson hired Chud; they won't see the obvious that Grigson was never in a position to fire Chud because he was protected by Pagano, and he couldn't fire Pagano because Irsay retained the authority to join them at the hip and to unjoin them.

 

They will never acknowledge that Grigson meddled (appropriately, BTW) because he realized early on that Chuck was incompetent, but knew that you can't fire the creator of the ChuckStrong Angle. 

 

Instead, their memory of how Grigson treated local media and his overall personality are big data points for evaluating his football decisions.

 

The atmosphere in a echo chamber can easily reposition what "center" is.  Just like in politics, when certain circles have shifted the center Left in their world, something truly center seems extremely Right. And visa versa, in theory.

 

In this biased echo chamber, not hating Grigson is seen as defending him.  Not praising Ballard is seen as "not liking" what he's doing.   

 

 

You call me dramatic,  yet look at your post here.

 

Point after point where you literally say no one here will see the flaws of Ballard....  except you.

 

You and ONLY YOU will be able to figure out the problems that Ballard has.    Everyone else is too blind, too loyal,  too incompetent,  hey, fill in the blank.    But YOU in your personal genius can read between the lines and see what is obvious to YOU and YOU ALONE!

 

That's paranoid.    That's delusional.

 

You can call me dramatic all day long.    But that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

While being paranoid and delusional are not good things.    There's no way to spin that.

 

And look at this thread.    I'm not alone in my observations.   A number of other top posters see your false arguments for what they are.     False and filled with strawmen.    

 

Sorry, Doug.    This is a mess of your own making.

 

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You call me dramatic,  yet look at your post here.

 

Point after point where you literally say no one here will see the flaws of Ballard....  except you.

 

You and ONLY YOU will be able to figure out the problems that Ballard has.    Everyone else is too blind, too loyal,  too incompetent,  hey, fill in the blank.    But YOU in your personal genius can read between the lines and see what is obvious to YOU and YOU ALONE!

 

That's paranoid.    That's delusional.

 

You can call me dramatic all day long.    But that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

While being paranoid and delusional are not good things.    There's no way to spin that.

 

And look at this thread.    I'm not alone in my observations.   A number of other top posters see your false arguments for what they are.     False and filled with strawmen.    

 

Sorry, Doug.    This is a mess of your own making.

 

Nope.  I simply said that the comments "didn't adequately address the oline" were, apparently, now getting a pass under Ballard when it was the phrase many used as the basis of criticism in the past.

 

Every poster who has quoted me has not disagreed with that, and has deflected into something else, for which I gladly particpated.

 

So, was the phrase, "didn't adequately address the oline " used as a criticism in the past by forum members or not?   

 

That is the only issue I was discussing, until the guys with the high post counts felt compelled to  redirect the thread to try to make it about me, with shallow comments no less.

[NewColtsFan]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Nope.  I simply said that the comments "didn't adequately address the oline" were, apparently, now getting a pass under Ballard when it was the phrase many used as the basis of criticism in the past.

 

Every poster who has quoted me has not disagreed with that, and has deflected into something else, for which I gladly particpated.

 

So, was the phrase, "didn't adequately address the oline " used as a criticism in the past by forum members or not?   

 

That is the only issue I was discussing, until the guys with the high post counts felt compelled to  redirect the thread to try to make it about me, with shallow comments no less.

 

They didn't make it about you Doug.       You did.

 

In your post to Superman which I responded to.

 

That post was ALL about you.

 

[Cynjin]

26 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Getting that post count up again eh? 

 

BTW, of your thousands of posts, how many display more in depth analysis than what is capable of a    ?  They're always about two sentences long, IIRC.

 

I can't type slower, you're just going to have to read slower.  

 

I didn't bring up Grigson.  He's old news and I don't care about him or where he is.   He didn't seek the media, unlike Polian, or even Tobin (who both had their own radio shows {as does Ballard I think}) so I never figured why he personally was in the conversation target so much by the media and fans, and why he got blame or credit for everything. 

 

Maybe because he never had his own show, and was aloof more so than what the media and fans want a GM to be, it was easy to hate him as soon as he made a few bad decisions.

 

Bias can matter when talking about sacks, Nelson, Hooker, Wilson, etc. this coming season.  "Failure to adequately address" was a statement made to support criticism in the past.  But not now, apparently.

 

To answer your question:  Similar circumstances would be that when RG had the opportunity to draft at #18, he drafted a immediate starter at C.  He drafted Mewhort in the second.  Ballard has drafted Nelson at 6, and Smith in the second.  Grigson drafted bad olinemen in the 4th, and Ballard drafted Banner.  Grigson's FA acquisitions were with no real salary cap.  Ballard didn't spend the cap he had. 

 

Yes, Grigson acquired bad olinemen.  And Ballard acquired Vujnovich.  Grigson acquired more bad ones than Ballard.  RG was also GM for more years than Ballard so far. 

 

As far as I'm concerned, I call that simply pointing out facts.  I guess some see that as a defense of someone you're not supposed to defend.

 

For someone that says they are not defending Grigson, it sure sounds like someone defending Grigson.

[DougDew]

43 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

For someone that says they are not defending Grigson, it sure sounds like someone defending Grigson.

And my point is that many will state that there is something implicitly wrong with doing that, without ever discussing the merits of the points made.   Typically using two sentence wise cracker comments

 

Personally, I think Ballard is making better decisions at this point than Grigson.  I really do.

 

Of course, fairness compels me to say that he was allowed to fire a coach he thought was incompetent, hire his first...well...second choice; and had the franchise QB on the roster allowing him to make savy draft pick trades to get more high ranking players instead of using that valuable pick to draft the QB.  And his predecessor left him with a bunch of cap space his first 2 years, unlike Grigson. 

 

And I thought he was doing a much better job with the oline, until this thread made me actually think about it more deeply.

 

But those points aside, I think its obvious, totally clear, totally, he's doing a much better job and I'm glad the Colts are under his leadership. 

[Cynjin]

11 hours ago, DougDew said:

And my point is that many will state that there is something implicitly wrong with doing that, without ever discussing the merits of the points made.   Typically using two sentence wise cracker comments

 

Personally, I think Ballard is making better decisions at this point than Grigson.  I really do.

 

Of course, fairness compels me to say that he was allowed to fire a coach he thought was incompetent, hire his first...well...second choice; and had the franchise QB on the roster allowing him to make savy draft pick trades to get more high ranking players instead of using that valuable pick to draft the QB.  And his predecessor left him with a bunch of cap space his first 2 years, unlike Grigson. 

 

And I thought he was doing a much better job with the oline, until this thread made me actually think about it more deeply.

 

But those points aside, I think its obvious, totally clear, totally, he's doing a much better job and I'm glad the Colts are under his leadership. 

 

I don't disagree with what you have stated.  I too believe that Ballard is doing a better job than Grigson, but that is with the benefit of hindsight with Grigson that I do not have with Ballard yet.  I will also say that Grigson knows far more about being a GM than I do or anyone on this board, IMO.  I do believe that Grigson tried to fix the Oline, but, again in hindsight, did not make choice that panned out.  We will see how well Ballard's choices turn out, but to this point they look better to me.  I will be interested in seeing what Ballard's choices are in the future drafts now that he has his scouting department in place vs last year when he was utilizing those already in place.

 

I could be wrong but didn't Grigson and Irsay hire Pagano together or was that purely a Irsay hire? I would have supported the McDaniels hire, but to be honest I like Reich much better.  It could be bias on my part because I met Reich once at an airport, we were on the same flight to Phoenix, I think.  He seemed then like a man that wanted to become a head coach and I was impressed by him in our brief conversation. 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Cynjin said:

 

I don't disagree with what you have stated.  I too believe that Ballard is doing a better job than Grigson, but that is with the benefit of hindsight with Grigson that I do not have with Ballard yet.  I will also say that Grigson knows far more about being a GM than I do or anyone on this board, IMO.  I do believe that Grigson tried to fix the Oline, but, again in hindsight, did not make choice that panned out.  We will see how well Ballard's choices turn out, but to this point they look better to me.  I will be interested in seeing what Ballard's choices are in the future drafts now that he has his scouting department in place vs last year when he was utilizing those already in place.

 

I could be wrong but didn't Grigson and Irsay hire Pagano together or was that purely a Irsay hire? I would have supported the McDaniels hire, but to be honest I like Reich much better.  It could be bias on my part because I met Reich once at an airport, we were on the same flight to Phoenix, I think.  He seemed then like a man that wanted to become a head coach and I was impressed by him in our brief conversation. 

I assumed that Grigson hired pagano initially because that's how I assumed the hierarchy typically worked, not because of anything that was specifically said.  It could have simply been a recommendation by RG.  And why not, we all loved the hire at the time, IIRC.  After the ChuckStrong PR stuff, I'm sure Irsay took more interest in keeping Pagano, despite some rumblings from us that noticed some pre-game preparation and on-field management issues.  Whether or not RG wanted him gone by then is anyone's guess.  However, after the meddling issue and the drama with the new contract, the three-amigos presser pretty much told us they were joined at the hip, and if RG wanted to be GM he would have CP as HC, and visa versa.  So I assume Irsay decided to retain CP after the first 8-8 season and who knows if RG agreed or not.

 

I'm not interested in rehashing old analysis forever.  My comments were not intended to defend RG.  They were more about why why we aren't criticizing CB today when the same language is being used.

 

I like the Reich hire.  And thought Ballard immediately righted the ship after the Josh disaster.  Frankly, the fact that CB wanted to hire Josh in the first place was a concern for me. He just didn't seem to have leadership qualities, despite being a tremendous OC and play caller.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

56 minutes ago, DougDew said:

They were more about why why we aren't criticizing CB today when the same language is being used.

 

Probably because it's too soon to judge one as harshly as the other.

 

Especially when the one you're waiting to judge is AT LEAST a nice guy with a good attitude about everything, and actually takes ownership for any mistakes from his 1st season.  I never met Grigson, but I remember grumblings about him after his first year.  I've gotten nothing but good vibes from everyone that interacts with Chris Ballard (including myself).

 

If he can't bring a Lombardi to Indianapolis, then he may end up like Grigson.  But I doubt fans will want him tarred-n-feathered before running him out of town.  Hoosiers have a thing about hospitality and Chris has embraced and embodied that up to this point, unlike his predecessor.

[southwest1]

On 8/3/2018 at 3:44 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Whoever tries to fill Bob's shoes when he retires will have their hands full.

Understatement of the year right there brother. Uh huh. Yep. No easy task for sure. I wouldn't wish that pressure on anybody. You know, following a legend in the booth like Bob. 

[NewColtsFan]

 

@Doug Dew

 

Hey....    there was one last thought I wanted to share...     and I'm not 100% sure I'm right about this,  but I think I am....

 

I don't believe Ballard has his own radio show.     If he does,  it's news to me.    I have never seen a mention of it anywhere.     Not by any other poster.    Not by those who run this website.    Not by any local Indy media.     No mention.

 

I assume if I'm wrong about this,  someone here on the website will come along and correct me.

 

I think Ballard is more willing to go on local media and talk than Grigson was,  but only because he's more comfortable giving interviews.....     

 

Anyway.....     it was a point you raised and I just wanted to address it before the thread scrolls off and dies.....

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, southwest1 said:

Understatement of the year right there brother. Uh huh. Yep. No easy task for sure. I wouldn't wish that pressure on anybody. You know, following a legend in the booth like Bob. 

Bob is the GOAT.

[Superman]

On 8/6/2018 at 8:55 AM, Lucky Colts Fan said:

Probably because it's too soon to judge one as harshly as the other.

 

Nah, that can't be it. There must be some deep seated bias that's created a huge discrepancy in the way these two were/are treated...

 

Even though, at this point in Grigson's tenure, he was widely considered The Man, winning Exec of the Year in Year 1. The biggest complaint about Grigson at this point would have been that he overspent on Erik Walden, who actually wound up being one of Grigson's best FA signings. 

 

It's revisionist, at best, to act like Grigson was raked over the coals his entire time with the Colts. He wasn't. He had a mostly favorable rating for the first year and a half, at least.