Jump to content
Click here to get your free tickets for Colts Training Camp today!
Jared Cisneros

Luck or Ballard, who is more important to the Colts?

Who is more important to our team  

104 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is more important to the Colts



Recommended Posts

I thought I'd see people's opinions on this question now that we have a large enough sample size on Ballard. Is he more important than Luck? Is Luck still more valuable? Let me know and start a discussion! I personally think Ballard has become more valuable than Luck to us as he's proven he can build a team from scratch and nail the draft at a very high % rate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I thought I'd see people's opinions on this question now that we have a large enough sample size on Ballard. Is he more important than Luck? Is Luck still more valuable? Let me know and start a discussion! I personally think Ballard has become more valuable than Luck to us as he's proven he can build a team from scratch and nail the draft at a very high % rate.

I know everyone is high on Ballard, including myself, but there is absolutely no way this team has the success it did last year without him. Their may be 2-3 other QB's in the league that could have done it. Remember luck took a worse roster with a much worse gm to the AFC championship game. Without luck we might win 8 games next year but with I expect atleast 11.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, twfish said:

I know everyone is high on Ballard, including myself, but there is absolutely no way this team has the success it did last year without him. Their may be 2-3 other QB's in the league that could have done it. Remember luck took a worse roster with a much worse gm to the AFC championship game. Without luck we might win 8 games next year but with I expect atleast 11.

I think that if he had too, Ballard could of found a replacement for Luck had he not returned from injury. He already traded for Brissett (top 3 backup in the league), and I believe he would of drafted someone to compete with him in that scenario. The difference between Ballard and Luck is, if we had Ballard, he could build an elite team around Brissett and the drafted QB to keep us going. With Luck and no Ballard, we have Andrew Luck and an inferior GM who would build an inferior team around Luck, and Luck's window is shorter than with Ballard. I just trust the GM that seemingly has the formula to the perfect team over a 30 year old QB that when he's gone, we'd be in mediocrity without Ballard refreshing the team every year.

 

I never want to be a non-playoff team again, and with Ballard, we will have a Pats like run for the next 20 years til he retires.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way I can think of to see the value any employee has to their employer is by their pay....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coltsfanej said:

The best way I can think of to see the value any employee has to their employer is by their pay....

I don't understand. Are you saying that Luck is more valuable than Ballard because he gets paid more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I think that if he had too, Ballard could of found a replacement for Luck had he not returned from injury. He already traded for Brissett (top 3 backup in the league), and I believe he would of drafted someone to compete with him in that scenario. The difference between Ballard and Luck is, if we had Ballard, he could build an elite team around Brissett and the drafted QB to keep us going. With Luck and no Ballard, we have Andrew Luck and an inferior GM who would build an inferior team around Luck, and Luck's window is shorter than with Ballard. I just trust the GM that seemingly has the formula to the perfect team over a 30 year old QB that when he's gone, we'd be in mediocrity without Ballard refreshing the team every year.

 

I never want to be a non-playoff team again, and with Ballard, we will have a Pats like run for the next 20 years til he retires.

 

I wouldn't say ballard has built an elite team even with Luck so far.

We were 4-12 without Luck, granted it was ballard's first season.

And we just went 11-5 including 2 playoff games with Luck.

 

This upcoming 3rd season with ballard will be interesting to see where the team is at. And knock on wood, God forbid, if Luck went down for the season, how will this team do? Replacing a Franchise QB is not as easy as you may think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

I wouldn't say ballard has built an elite team even with Luck so far.

We were 4-12 without Luck, granted it was ballard's first season.

And we just went 11-5 including 2 playoff games with Luck.

 

This upcoming 3rd season with ballard will be interesting to see where the team is at. And knock on wood, God forbid, if Luck went down for the season, how will this team do?

That's why I said "could". We're an above average team right now. With another year or two the way Ballard stacks picks and players, we will have an elite team. I would think having Ballard, Brissett, a drafted qb, and an elite team would be better than Luck, an average gm, and who knows what team we'd have now from that gm around Luck since after Grigson was fired. It'd be Luck carrying the team all over again like 2012-2014 and our shelf-life as a team revolving around when he retires. I take Ballard all day and for the next 20 years.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is tough. We all saw what a poor GM could do to a team, with Luck struggling to pull a team of bad players each year into the postseason, then the team falling apart after Luck was injured due to Grigson not getting help up front. Ballard I can trust to build a well rounded team, which we saw the Rams take to the Super Bowl with a good-not-great QB in Goff. 

 

That being said, Luck did pull the team singlehandedly to the playoffs multiple times under Grigson, so he is a special QB. I love Luck and am so happy we have him. 

 

Overall though, I have to lean on Ballard. You look at the Patriots vs the Packers. Brady, a 6th round pick, was made into one of the greatest of all time by having Bellicheck put together a whole lot of players around him that can help him. Then with Rodgers, you find an amazing QB that is struggling to do much at all due to a lack of help around him. With Ballard, I have faith he could find us a QB similarly to how the Patriots found theirs, and also put an amazing team around that QB, rather than relying solely on Luck, which has been proven in the past to only get us so far. 

 

Luckily for us, however, we don’t have this dilemma, and get to enjoy the pair of them for the better part of the next decade! Go Blue!!

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say Ballard, and that's not a knock on Luck. My thinking is comparative to Polian and Manning. In 2011, we sucked without Manning. I think Ballard is building a team that doesn't necessarily have to have a HOF QB to be competitive. I'm not saying we make the playoffs without Luck, but with a semi-competent back-up, I could still see us keeping it interesting. JMO

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Buck Showalter said:

Gee whiz, i hope the Colts can figure out a way to keep them both...

 

Yes they are both good. The Colts should re-sign them

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Ballard but I voted Luck. Without Luck we still wouldn't be a playoff team if we had an average QB. He is a top 5 QB once again in the league, hard to argue he isn't. You just can't replace a QB like him and expect the same result. Going into the season really only Brady, Mahomes, Brees, and Rodgers are arguably better than Luck. Brady and Brees are old though. Ballard was able to fill a lot of holes we had because he stepped into a situation where he already had a franchise QB.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pilgrim said:

I say Ballard, and that's not a knock on Luck. My thinking is comparative to Polian and Manning. In 2011, we sucked without Manning. I think Ballard is building a team that doesn't necessarily have to have a HOF QB to be competitive. I'm not saying we make the playoffs without Luck, but with a semi-competent back-up, I could still see us keeping it interesting. JMO

Luck > Manning

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BOTT said:

Luck > Manning

 

Stir the pot much? :D

 

The potential is there, now we just need to build the resume

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope we don’t find out until after Luck retires with 3 straight Lombardi’s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When our HOF GM had Manning, the team won. When he didn’t, we were the worst team in the league. 

 

When our current GM had Luck, the team won. When he didn’t, we were the 3rd worst team in the league. Yes, it was his first season, but that’s all there is to go by at this time. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shakedownstreet said:

 

Stir the pot much? :D

 

The potential is there, now we just need to build the resume

Maybe.....

 

but I would argue his resume was exceeding that of manning until the injury.  And that was with Dumb & Dumber running the show. Imagine if Luck had Ballard and Frank from day one.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This team only wins four games last year without Luck. Don't underestimate the confidence the other 52 players have with Luck on the field vs Brisset. Not a knock on Brisset, he just doesn,t compare to Luck in leadership and the ability to lift teammates level of play. This team has no limitations with Luck on the field(I know, bold prediction, open for ridicule) But I am confident going into this season we will be competitive and successful. Ballard is doing a tremendous job, and don't underestimate Frank Reich either.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Two_pound said:

This team only wins four games last year without Luck. Don't underestimate the confidence the other 52 players have with Luck on the field vs Brisset. Not a knock on Brisset, he just doesn,t compare to Luck in leadership and the ability to lift teammates level of play. This team has no limitations with Luck on the field(I know, bold prediction, open for ridicule) But I am confident going into this season we will be competitive and successful. Ballard is doing a tremendous job, and don't underestimate Frank Reich either.

Exactly, Ballard has been doing a great job so far but without Luck we would not be a playoff team with the roster we have now. You just can't plug in someone to replace Luck. Lets say for example you replaced Luck with someone like Carr, Cousins, Trubisky, or Watson who are all considered above average to good, we would not make the playoffs with those QB's. Those QB's are better than Brissett. Luck is very good/borderline great. Our roster has filled many holes and we are strong in some area's but Luck is the engine that makes us go.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, I think Luck is better than a lot of people give him credit for. Again, I am very excited for this upcoming season. Hopefully nothing bizarre will derail it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Ballard first took this job he was asked about Luck's health and he

replied "its not about one player" Ballard is getting a system in place

to win regardless who is behind center. Just look at how the Pats were

still winning games with Cassel, Garapolo and their 3rd string QB in

Brisset. 

 

Keep in mind that Luck may already be retired without Ballard's philosophy

of building from the inside out and putting a strong I line in front of him 

and keeping him clean. Baldinger quoted "he could have played this game

in a pair of Bermuda shorts"

 

Luck is a very important piece to this team but football isn't golf or tennis, it

takes 10 other players to score on offense and a total of 53 players to win

games. Don't get me wrong, I really like Luck but I wouldn't take one

good soldier over a competent general and that is what this debate

boils down to.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I don't understand. Are you saying that Luck is more valuable than Ballard because he gets paid more?

Depends on your definition of valuable... the #1 definition of valuable is being worth a lot of money... So by definition Luck would be more valuable... I believe both are of great importance to the team and that both would be very hard to replace. Short term success I would say Luck helps more... Long term success I would say Ballard has a bigger impact simply based on the potential career length and role with the team... I would not say that one is more important than the other, but being more valuable? Money talks.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without Andrew Luck, we are a sub .500 team even now.

 

Let me ask it this way?

 

Frank Reich or Ballard.

Who is more valuable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough debate...but I went with Ballard simply because I believe he could find a competent QB to go along with this all of a sudden very well rounded team Ballard has constructed in such a short time. 

 

Id rather have a very talented and balanced team with an okay QB than a team with a great QB but not much talent around him. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not an exact science, but would you rather have:

 

A) Andrew Luck and another GM with an abundance of cash to spend on FA, and draft picks?

 

or

 

B) Ballard, with an abundance of cash to spend on FA, and draft picks.

 

I choose Andrew Luck. We’ve already seen the worst case scenario with having Andrew Luck and a bad GM — we were still winning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as i like Luck it’s Ballard pretty easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Plunkett

Jim McMahon
Doug Williams

Jeff Hostetler

Mark Rypien

Trent Dilfer

Brad Johnson

Joe Flacco
Nick Foles

 Super Bowl WINNING QB'S
 

Other QB's that have been in the SB since 2000
Kerry Collins
Matt Hasselback

Rich Gannon

Jack Delhomme

REX GROSSMAN

Colin Kaepernick

         The CORRECT answer is the GM

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the statement is, "It's never about one guy....".

 

 

2 hours ago, Buck Showalter said:

9276b3bd39c2edaef8db2280a13124d5.jpg.2af4f3f25c6e25a11b2199dd60f3037d.jpgLucky Marciano???

Dude....that is the funniest comment I have read this year. Well freaking done...

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BOTT said:

Maybe.....

 

but I would argue his resume was exceeding that of manning until the injury.  And that was with Dumb & Dumber running the show. Imagine if Luck had Ballard and Frank from day one.

For Luck to come in as a rookie and do what he did the first three seasons was amazing. I agree with this. Plus the teams were not that good.So to do what he did his rookie season was remarkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am excited to see what Luck does the next five years with a great team around him. He will have a better team then Manning had. Especially defensivly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

Jim Plunkett

Jim McMahon
Doug Williams

Jeff Hostetler

Mark Rypien

Trent Dilfer

Brad Johnson

Joe Flacco
Nick Foles

 Super Bowl WINNING QB'S
 

Other QB's that have been in the SB since 2000
Kerry Collins
Matt Hasselback

Rich Gannon

Jack Delhomme

REX GROSSMAN

Colin Kaepernick

         The CORRECT answer is the GM

You named only 9 QB's that have won a SB out of 53 played that aren't considered very good or great. Plunkett won twice so 10 times in 53 SB's it has been proven a team can win a SB without a franchise QB = 18.9% it can happen. Terrible odds. A franchise QB that has been very good or great has won it 43 times out of 53 played = 81.1% of the time. The %'s show you need a QB that is very good or great most of the time to win a SB. I like my odds having a franchise QB of winning a SB. Your example shows a fluke can happen now and then as 18.9% of anything is real lucky if you win.

 

Easy answer is Luck. A team just needs a GM that knows what he is doing unlike Grigson if you have a franchise QB. Ballard knows what he is doing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will take luck on game day and Ballard in the off-season. I don't think this is a fair comparison. One has a shelf life the other really does not. One will score touchdowns the other will watch. Just my opinion though. But I would take Ballard over Polian

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luck succeeded under Grigson who most believe was a terrible GM. Ballard without Luck was 4 and 12.  I know that isn't a fair way to measure things but that's all we have right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's harder to acquire?  An elite QB or an elite GM?

 

I would think it's harder to acquire an elite QB because they get drafted high and usually re-sign with the team that drafted them.  While an elite GM can be acquired by theoretically just out-bidding the other teams.

 

So while my initial thought was Ballard > Luck because he determines the overall talent of the entire roster, I'm thinking it might actually be Luck > Ballard just because of how big of a difference it makes to have an elite QB and how hard it is to acquire one.

 

:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Flash7 said:

It’s not an exact science, but would you rather have:

 

A) Andrew Luck and another GM with an abundance of cash to spend on FA, and draft picks?

 

or

 

B) Ballard, with an abundance of cash to spend on FA, and draft picks.

 

I choose Andrew Luck. We’ve already seen the worst case scenario with having Andrew Luck and a bad GM — we were still winning. 

We were winning, but at what cost?? We weren’t going to get to the Super Bowl, and without Ballard coming in to build an O-line, Luck would be dead or worse, retired!! As much as I think Luck is a special QB, I think Ballard is just as special, and he has to do with both sides of the ball. Andrew can’t play LB, but Ballard could find us a stud LB ala Darius Leonard and another competent QB to help the offense

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 6:50 PM, Jared Cisneros said:

I thought I'd see people's opinions on this question now that we have a large enough sample size on Ballard. Is he more important than Luck? Is Luck still more valuable? Let me know and start a discussion! I personally think Ballard has become more valuable than Luck to us as he's proven he can build a team from scratch and nail the draft at a very high % rate.

 

In the modern world of the NFL where the quarterback is, by definition,  the most important player on the field, Andrew is clearly the most valuable player.

 

But....

 

Who is responsible for every player on the team?   All 53, plus the 10 player PS.

And who is responsible for every front office executive, every scout, every coach, including the head coach? Everyone.  

 

It’s the General Manager. 

 

So with that as a definition, Chris Ballard is the most important person in the organization.   Especially since he’s doing such a good job.

 

Someday Luck will retire, and Chris Ballard will be charged with finding out next great quarterback.   Hopefully CB does as good a job when that time comes as he’s done in his first two-plus years here.....

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked Ballard and GM in general. Seattle is not successful with Wilson right now but they were when their defense was awesome. You could even say the coach is more important.  Parcells and Gibbs could have been successful with me at QB. Recently  The Eagles did it with some great GM work, great coaching and a backup QB. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • "Everyone wanted him to fail so bad". Not really IMO to your post. I could care less about him and I still think at times he may abuse his wife and he has anger issues. She puts up with it because he has millions and they have a kid together. Based on his past I believe he has issues. This here doesn't change my mind about him. They won't have an excuse now when we beat them  . I hope Leonard knocks him silly when he goes over the middle, I would.   You seem to really defend the guy, why I have no idea. You say she is "a piece of you know what". I think he is too and a proven abuser. 
    • True.  But if I remember correctly Bellicheck sent Bledsoe to the Bills and then started Brady.  That was a long time ago of course and I don't remember what they received in return.  I wonder if there are more current examples of a star player being traded within the same division?  
    • If you say so.  It's not evident from your posts And I accepted that.  I'm just saying their previous method was flawed and their new method is flawed as well. But you are equating real life to the game.  Of course in the game a player is going to increase/decrease based on certain items.  For example, if somewhere were to play Madden 2019 through the 2019 season and then start the 2020 season, players ratings would increase/decrease based on the games algorithms.  But that doesn't have anything to do with real life and an actual players ratings. Wow, thanks.  Again, a lot of the Madden ratings leave me scratching my head. But according to you, it's not the same for every player.  You claimed that for oline it was a cumulative based on all their years but with skilled positions since they have more tangible skill sets, their ratings can be based on less information.
    • The NFL did the right thing. There was no evidence of child abuse and the hospital ruled it a accident. Sure maybe he could of got a couple games from the way that tape came off but they did the right thing. It looks like his fiancé is a piece of you know what. Everyone wanted him to fail so bad.  For the kids sake I hope these two go there separate ways so this kid isn’t stuck with them going at it all the time.
    • I personally don't think a QB has to win a SB to be considered great. If having to win a SB is the standard to make a QB great does winning a SB automatically make a QB great. The answer is no unless you consider Jeff Hosteler, Doug Williams, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Joe Flacco great QBs. Those guys don't even belong in the same conversation as Luck and Marino when considering who is the better QB.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...