Chris Ballard and Frank Reich given extensions through 2026

[EastStreet]

4 hours ago, stitches said:

That in itself is not a reason to get rid off either guy. But it sure as hell would have to give you pause about extending them for 5 years into the future. IMO how the Wentz thing goes is incredibly important for this team and for both Ballard and Reich. Irsay pretty much treated it as if it was a success already. This is the type of extension you give to your decision makers after your team has hit on a QB and is set for success for the next decade... or at the very least for the duration of that extension. And maybe we are... who knows. Or maybe we are not. That's the point. We have no surefire long-term solution at the most important positions in football... QB, LT, DE, WR, CB. Irsay treated them like we have a lot of those solutions locked in. 

 

I'm not expecting them to fail. I think they've done relatively good job, too... BUT with Wentz failure is not some distant unlikely possibility. We will know relatively soon whether Wentz is a hit or a miss, IMO. He's not a rookie. He's a 28 year old QB with 5 years experience in the league... a player we paid a 1st and 3d and 25M contract a year for the next 4 years. He needs to produce. NOW! And maybe he will... but what happens if he doesn't? How many GMs get the chance to take a second shot at a franchise QB after the 1st one flames out? 

 

Same. I don't care about Irsay's money. But I care about what the way he's spending his money means for the team. IMO it means both Ballard and Reich probably survive Wentz flaming out. There seems to be a very VERY long leash on both of them. 

I wish we knew the terms of both the last contracts, and both the new contracts. I think someone said Ballard was in a contract year, so I can understand his extension. I'm not sure if Reich was in a contract year, or still had a year to go.

 

Overall, I'm a lot more optimistic long term with Ballard, than I am with Reich. Reich has a lot of fantastic qualities that I love, but he's also has some areas that give me pause.

[shasta519]

3 hours ago, stitches said:

That in itself is not a reason to get rid off either guy. But it sure as hell would have to give you pause about extending them for 5 years into the future. IMO how the Wentz thing goes is incredibly important for this team and for both Ballard and Reich. Irsay pretty much treated it as if it was a success already. This is the type of extension you give to your decision makers after your team has hit on a QB and is set for success for the next decade... or at the very least for the duration of that extension. And maybe we are... who knows. Or maybe we are not. That's the point. We have no surefire long-term solution at the most important positions in football... QB, LT, DE, WR, CB. Irsay treated them like we have a lot of those solutions locked in. 

 

I'm not expecting them to fail. I think they've done relatively good job, too... BUT with Wentz failure is not some distant unlikely possibility. We will know relatively soon whether Wentz is a hit or a miss, IMO. He's not a rookie. He's a 28 year old QB with 5 years experience in the league... a player we paid a 1st and 3d and 25M contract a year for the next 4 years. He needs to produce. NOW! And maybe he will... but what happens if he doesn't? How many GMs get the chance to take a second shot at a franchise QB after the 1st one flames out? 

 

Same. I don't care about Irsay's money. But I care about what the way he's spending his money means for the team. IMO it means both Ballard and Reich probably survive Wentz flaming out. There seems to be a very VERY long leash on both of them. 

 

I think it's just how the timing lined up. Year 1 with Wentz happened to be the last year of their contracts. Irsay seems to value continuity (enough to extend the predecessors when he did), and probably didn't want them to have a lame duck year, so he gave it to them now. 

 

To the bolded...it's surprisingly a few more than you would think. But the catch is that you have either been in the org for a very long time and/or had real success (like SB appearance success). Most "newer" GMs don't get a ton of rope without either. Pace is really an outlier. 

 

I think Spielman in MIN is somewhat of a comp for the IND situation.

 

Here's what I came up with:

 

Elway (Osweiler, Lynch, Lock) - Elway is a DEN legend...they probably aren't firing him. Not to mention all of the success they had when Manning was there.

 

Keim (Rosen, Murray) - Keim has been with ARI for a very long time and had a lot of success with Palmer before they drafted Rosen. Plus, Keim knew to bail immediately and then fixed it the following year with Murray.

 

Spielman (Ponder, Teddy, Cousins) - Spielman has been with MIN for a very long time. And technically, Ponder wasn't his call since he was only a VP at the time. His first choice as GM was actually Teddy, who suffered a catastrophic leg injury. After that, MIN was in QB purgatory for a bit until Cousins hit FA. But they did get to NFCC with Case Keenum the year before they signed Cousins.

 

Snead (Goff, Stafford) - Snead's first QB was technically Goff (since he inherited Bradford). After Bradford busted, they were in QB purgatory for a bit until Goff came along. But Snead also managed to hire McVay and get to the SB with Goff. They have had a lot of success since 2017 and that buys a lot of goodwill. 

 

Lynch (Jimmy G, Lance) - Lynch also got to the SB with his first QB. Of course he gets a second shot.

 

Roseman (Wentz, Hurts) - Reid drafted Foles and then Chip Kelly took over. So Roseman's first QB investment was actually Wentz, but Roseman won the SB with Foles. So it's not that surprising he is still there, despite what PHI fans think.

 

Pace (Trubisky, Fields) - Pace is really the outlier in this group for second chances. 

[stitches]

14 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I wish we knew the terms of both the last contracts, and both the new contracts. I think someone said Ballard was in a contract year, so I can understand his extension. I'm not sure if Reich was in a contract year, or still had a year to go.

 

Overall, I'm a lot more optimistic long term with Ballard, than I am with Reich. Reich has a lot of fantastic qualities that I love, but he's also has some areas that give me pause.

Same. I don't know when their contracts were due to expire. If they were both in last year of contract, then it's understandable to give them an extension. I really like how Ballard operates in the grand scheme of things. I like his process overall. But he's missed on pretty much all CBs and DEs in the draft and his WRs are still in the air. Those are super important positions and we've put in serious resources in them. We need at least some of those early round picks at important positions to start hitting for us. 

 

Similar with Reich. I like him. He looks in control of this team. There is certain steadiness and charisma that he projects and I am not worried that he will embarrass the team with a dumb coaching decision. But I also think he's probably more conservative playcaller than my liking. I still don't want him fired, though...

 

(I'm afraid some of my posts here might seem like I'm calling for both their heads - I'm not, I like both of them and they've done well with what they've gotten as a situation/roster... but with both of them there are still things they need to prove and there are still boxes that need to be checked... I don't want them fired... I want them to do better with their respective decisions)

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Ballard’s contract was up early in 22. Not sure about Reich’s. Seeing EJ Speed talk about Reich in his presser yesterday shows how much these players love him.

[throwing BBZ]

13 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

If I may,   I think Sup is saying as of right now he is confident.    But GMs and coaches get fired all the time.    I don't see that happening with this duo unless things completely unravel 

 

 What should be said is that Both men have proven that they are Great leaders and very good at their jobs. As long as Ballard doesn't turn over most of his job to his Son, he will be here as long as he wants.
 And Reich should be able to keep his lockerroom interested just as long as some of the great coaches do/did. He has the character, and the FB knowledge to keep up with the Jonses.
 Words are wasted on what if with these two men. Really 3 with Irsay.
Their combined abilities and Leadership are superb for the mission.

[throwing BBZ]

14 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Justin Fields is one, but another is Justin Herbert. The Colts could of traded up from 13 to 5 in order to get him in 2020. It would of cost us Buckner, Pittman, and Paye probably, but we would also have Herbert, a 3rd from the 2021 draft, and all of our picks next year (either the 1st or 2nd we lose). 

 

I was against Herbert and thought he'd be a bust, but that's just my opinion that was wrong. It's Ballard's opinion that matters, and he didn't take Herbert (which is wrong in hindsight, but Ballard is making the decision) or Fields (who is impressing thus far). 

 

So if Wentz fails, or Herbert or Fields become a top 5 elite QB, then we can look back and say Ballard made a mistake, and again, it's Ballard's decision, so hindsight is pointless from our view, Ballard is the GM. You can't say you put the trust in the GM and absolve him of blame and call it hindsight when he's wrong.

 

Praise Ballard for being right, and blame him for his mistakes. Be fair both ways.

 

  Most people had concerns about what Herbert would be. 
 Nice, useless hindsight though.
 Enjoy OUR Team or not! JC you Waste so much energy as an arm-chair GM.
  And what you call Wrong really isn't. Players FAIL to meet expectations by the basketfull. You do your best evaluation, take a shot, and watch some guys have all the will, heart, character to fight their way to the top. 
 And others, for whatever reason, including MANY top 15 pics, never get it done.
 Ballard operates with a Plan for every player to get better, pre-draft.
The plan is given to them, they are studied, tracked on film, and continually coached up. If They fail that isn't a Fail on Ballard and his coaches.
 You just can't truly know everything in the mind of a human, exactly or what their outside influences will be. I trust that our organizations does as good a job as any to give these very young men every oportunity to become good players in our system. It is a multi-year road to becoming a big contributor for Most. 
I Laugh at those that say Ballard has failed at DE and WR. Because Here It Comes folks!!!

[Superman]

13 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Huh?   The length of the extension doesn’t matter?    Huh?

 

I think the proof of that being false is how Pagano was handled.   We kept him on and made him a lame duck and ate an entire season so Irsay wouldn’t have to eat so much contract.   Three years?   Too much.  Two years, that was acceptable.  
 

How often do you see a team bring in a new GM and he doesn’t fire the HC right away?   They wait a year.   I know it’s happened before,  but is rare.  
 

If the length of extensions didn’t matter, then many contract negotiations wouldn’t get hung up on that issue.    A rare disagreement for you and me. 

 

We disagree on the bolded. I don't think the years remaining on Pagano's contract had very much to do with why he was retained. He fired Grigson with three years on his contract, just one year after extending him. 

 

You don't want to get into a situation where you're paying three HCs at one time, because you keep making bad hires that flame out in a year or two. But that wasn't close to being the case with the Colts.

 

I believe Pagano was retained because Irsay believed Grigson was the bigger issue, and he wanted Pagano to get a shot without Grigson in the way. And I think part of the reason we see this differently is because you believe Irsay and Colts have to do some financial stretching to handle bigger team expenses, and I do not. So we're probably just not gonna be on the same page here.

 

And when I say the length of the extension doesn't matter, I don't mean that in an absolute sense. Of course it matters for the parties involved. I just mean that having several years remaining on their contracts isn't enough to save them, if it becomes obvious that they're not doing a good job. 

[coltsfeva]

On 8/11/2021 at 9:33 AM, The Fish said:

I don't really like the timeframe v what's been accomplished. That's my first gut take. 

Probably a good move to lock em up and allow the brass to keep perspective about what they're building, but 5 years, based on no AFCS titles, one playoff win.. They wouldn't have gotten 5 years from me. 2/3 year extension would be more my speed.

 

   But… they weren’t given 5 years, based on what they’ve done so far, in terms of playoff success.

    They got those extensions based on the way they are building this team:

Character guys

Coersion among the coaching staff and front office 

Building the trenches

Finding talent in the draft

Managing the cap

Being prudent in free agency

A philosophy of “1% better every day”

An ability to deal with adversity 

 

  Ballard told us it will take time and you can build a team for short success (I.e. Eagles), but I like what these guys are doing. 
   The Colts setup to be contenders for a long time and if I ask myself if they are a better team than 2017, when Ballard got here, I have to say, ABSO-FRIGGIN-LUTELY!! 
 

 

[Superman]

6 hours ago, stitches said:

That's fair. You still would have the 21M of capspace though. You could use that on pretty much anyone you choose in FA. Along with the 19M difference between Wentz and rookie contract. 40M of capspace is no joke. This is not for 1 year. This is for the duration of Buckner's and Wentz' contracts. You can get/keep a ton of talent with that. 

 

Still... with all the uncertainty in Herbert going forward - if you could have Herbert or Wentz right now on their respective deals. Who are you choosing? 

 

Also, yeah... I'm not sure such a move was available and if available I'm not sure it would be at that price. To me this was the biggest point of contention. 

 

 

I'm not non-chalantly tossing Buckner in and out of those scenarios. He's the main piece of them. But he is in those scenarios along with the other pieces we would have lost/gained. I'm not seeing a lot of talk about the 40M of capspace difference in those scenarios though. 40M for 4 years! This is %ton of money you can use in tons of ways to make your team better. This is in addition to having a young franchise QB. 

 

I'd rather have Buckner than $21m in cap space, he's better than anyone that cap space could have helped us get. And if Wentz is good, same for him. Cap space helps you get good players; if we have good players accounting for that cap space, why are we what-if'ing it?

 

Right now, on Herbert and Wentz? I'd like to see 2021. Herbert had a flashy rookie season, Wentz has to show whether he can get back to a high level of play. If Wentz is stuck in 2020, it's a no brainer. No reason to assume that he is, though.

 

I think you could maybe get up to #4 in 2020, but Gettleman is weird, and the fact that they didn't trade back kind of highlights that they wanted a king's ransom. I would have done it for Herbert, but once we traded for Buckner it was basically off the table. 

[Superman]

6 hours ago, stitches said:

Same. I don't care about Irsay's money. But I care about what the way he's spending his money means for the team. IMO it means both Ballard and Reich probably survive Wentz flaming out. There seems to be a very VERY long leash on both of them. 

 

I don't think heads must roll if Wentz flames out, no matter what. I definitely wasn't expecting such long extensions, but ultimately I'm not worried about what it means for the team, because I think we have good guys running the show. Not perfect, the roster still needs some work, the HC needs to dial some things in, but the operation is in good shape. And that means a lot to me.

[The Fish]

15 minutes ago, coltsfeva said:

   But… they weren’t given 5 years, based on what they’ve done so far, in terms of playoff success.

    They got those extensions based on the way they are building this team:

Character guys

Coersion among the coaching staff and front office 

Building the trenches

Finding talent in the draft

Managing the cap

Being prudent in free agency

A philosophy of “1% better every day”

An ability to deal with adversity 

 

  Ballard told us it will take time and you can build a team for short success (I.e. Eagles), but I like what these guys are doing. 
   The Colts setup to be contenders for a long time and if I ask myself if they are a better team than 2017, when Ballard got here, I have to say, ABSO-FRIGGIN-LUTELY!! 
 

 

 

I have no idea if they're set up for success or not. No one does. As for a better team than in 2017- well probably, maybe? But most of that comparison (and the rest of it) really does hinge on what one makes of the Andrew Luck story and how much culpability- or downhill consequences for that should be put unto others- if any, and how do you assess the rest of the Colts story, subsequent that. 2019 to now, other things have happened besides Andrew Luck hanging it up. Also, it's been known that the franchise needs a QB, and Ballard has played it safe/deferring to Reich's past history. I think that alone is where his pass/fail criteria is at. If Wentz or his next stab at it works, he's made, if it doesn't, he's just a guy.

[stitches]

26 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'd rather have Buckner than $21m in cap space, he's better than anyone that cap space could have helped us get. And if Wentz is good, same for him. Cap space helps you get good players; if we have good players accounting for that cap space, why are we what-if'ing it?

Same. It looks like a good deal now. But Buckner didn't come as a FA. We gave a premier pick for him in addition to those 21M a year. As to why "what-if"-ing - because it's fun to run different scenarios and paths we could have taken(and a lot of people here wanted us to take) and because others posed the question... so... I participated in that hypothetical   I don't think it's unreasonable question.

Quote

Right now, on Herbert and Wentz? I'd like to see 2021. Herbert had a flashy rookie season, Wentz has to show whether he can get back to a high level of play. If Wentz is stuck in 2020, it's a no brainer. No reason to assume that he is, though.

You have different types of uncertainty with both of them. That's a given. And they would have cost different types of resources. Overall the hypothetical becomes a bit complicated, but to me if you can have a QB with the rookie season of Herbert and his skill and physical/athletic traits, it becomes a relatively easy decision when put against the alternative... with all the pluses and minuses of both situations. 

 

Quote

I think you could maybe get up to #4 in 2020, but Gettleman is weird, and the fact that they didn't trade back kind of highlights that they wanted a king's ransom. I would have done it for Herbert, but once we traded for Buckner it was basically off the table. 

Gettleman didn't get enough this year to let a team desperate for QB move up for one of the premier QBs in the draft. IMO he has wonky ideas about trades in the draft(for example, until now he had NEVER traded down in a draft... and now that he traded down... he just got a single additional 1st from the Bears, who were the most desperate team for a QB I've seen recently). IMO he was a prime candidate to abuse in a draft day trade scenario and the Bears probably did. I don't think the market for QBs in 2020 was as strong as it was this year, which is why there weren't many teams eager to jump ahead of the Dolphins and Chargers. IMO this was the reason for lack of trades, not Gettleman being headstrong. None of those QBs were viewed the way the top 4 were viewed this year IMO. Herbert, Tua, Love... all of them had much more significant questions than any of Lawrence, Wilson, Fields, Lance. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

Same. It looks like a good deal now. But Buckner didn't come as a FA. We gave a premier pick for him in addition to those 21M a year. As to why "what-if"-ing - because it's fun to run different scenarios and paths we could have taken(and a lot of people here wanted us to take) and because others posed the question... so... I participated in that hypothetical   I don't think it's unreasonable question.

 

You have different types of uncertainty with both of them. That's a given. And they would have cost different types of resources. Overall the hypothetical becomes a bit complicated, but to me if you can have a QB with the rookie season of Herbert and his skill and physical/athletic traits, it becomes a relatively easy decision when put against the alternative... with all the pluses and minuses of both situations. 

 

Gettleman didn't get enough this year to let a team desperate for QB move up for one of the premier QBs in the draft. IMO he has wonky ideas about trades in the draft(for example, until now he had NEVER traded down in a draft... and now that he traded down... he just got a single additional 1st from the Bears, who were the most desperate team for a QB I've seen recently). IMO he was a prime candidate to abuse in a draft day trade scenario and the Bears probably did. I don't think the market for QBs in 2020 was as strong as it was this year, which is why there weren't many teams eager to jump ahead of the Dolphins and Chargers. IMO this was the reason for lack of trades, not Gettleman being headstrong. None of those QBs were viewed the way the top 4 were viewed this year IMO. Herbert, Tua, Love... all of them had much more significant questions than any of Lawrence, Wilson, Fields, Lance. 

 

The "what-if"-ing takes the tone of 'they messed this up,' and that's why I object. I have zero issue with giving up those resources for Buckner, he is the kind of player that's worth it. Ballard made that move because he wasn't ready to go all in on a rookie QB, yet. 

 

Nothing wrong with hypotheticals, but acting like Buckner is a consolation is weird. He's a foundational player.

 

For Herbert/Wentz, if Herbert's successes fall back to the mean -- especially given how outlier-ish some of his production was -- and Wentz is back to 2019 status, it's a different conversation, right? 

 

Gettleman was probably the prime guy to abuse, but I think there's some real stubbornness with him and draft day trades. He said they were willing to move back in 2020, but the less strong QB market probably prevented him from getting a great offer. And in 2021, he didn't give up a top five pick. Still probably didn't get good value back, though. 

 

What I'm saying is that if Wentz is good in 2021, then these hypotheticals are pointless. And that's what the Colts braintrust is counting on. I was a proponent of the Wentz trade before it happened, so that's what I'm hoping for as well. And it's not a longshot projection, he's a good player who was in a rotten situation. 

 

So it's not my default to say 'they could have done this better, and now we're forced to keep them for another three years' in response to these extensions. I think we have good guys running the show, and I'm glad to keep them. If they start showing serious faults, my thinking will change.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I think Herbert would of had a lot of success right away with this team.  Our defense is just better the the Chargers. No doubt he fits the culture too. I am always impressed when I hear his interviews.  
 

Buckner though was probably the right choice. 

[shasta519]

14 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Justin Fields is one, but another is Justin Herbert. The Colts could of traded up from 13 to 5 in order to get him in 2020. It would of cost us Buckner, Pittman, and Paye probably, but we would also have Herbert, a 3rd from the 2021 draft, and all of our picks next year (either the 1st or 2nd we lose). 

 

I was against Herbert and thought he'd be a bust, but that's just my opinion that was wrong. It's Ballard's opinion that matters, and he didn't take Herbert (which is wrong in hindsight, but Ballard is making the decision) or Fields (who is impressing thus far). 

 

So if Wentz fails, or Herbert or Fields become a top 5 elite QB, then we can look back and say Ballard made a mistake, and again, it's Ballard's decision, so hindsight is pointless from our view, Ballard is the GM. You can't say you put the trust in the GM and absolve him of blame and call it hindsight when he's wrong.

 

Praise Ballard for being right, and blame him for his mistakes. Be fair both ways.

 

I agree. But I think you will see the Wentz experiment either be a genius move if it works (hopefully)...or if it doesn't it will just be chalked up to another byproduct of Luck retiring and forcing Ballard's hands. 

 

People get hung up on the Luck retirement because it was so unique, but Ballard took the Colts job AFTER Luck just had major shoulder surgery. Luck getting back to health, let alone getting back to his prior version, was definitely a risk from the get-go. And him missing the entire 2017 calendar year (and traveling to Europe for "treatment") made it even more apparent.

 

So I mean to be fair...one could argue it was somewhat lucky to even get Luck back for 2018 under those circumstances. 

 

And even in his introductory conference in 2017, Ballard literally said "it will never be about one guy. It's about all 53 men in that locker room..."

 

Yet, so many fans (and media) use that "one guy" as an excuse. As if people forgot Ballard said this.

 

And it wasn't just words...because his strategy has followed that mindset. Invest in the draft and build up the entire roster. And that strategy involved making many decision (Rivers as a bridge QB, trading for DeFo instead of drafting a QB...and then of course trading for Wentz) that followed that path. And I am not saying those were bad moves, but they did impact the QB approach (which is what will likely decide this team's ceiling).

 

So I don't buy the "super unlucky" narrative...and I don't think Ballard does either. Luck retiring was certainly not his plan, but relying on Luck wasn't either, which is he has built the team the way he has...and I think we can judge that.

 

But from a team success standpoint, I have always said I will reserve my judgement until I see how Wentz works out. I am skeptical (for reasons I don't need to list again), but that means nothing. If Wentz works out, then the roster approach has been a huge success. If not, I think there should be some accountability.

 

 

[stitches]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The "what-if"-ing takes the tone of 'they messed this up,' and that's why I object. I have zero issue with giving up those resources for Buckner, he is the kind of player that's worth it. Ballard made that move because he wasn't ready to go all in on a rookie QB, yet. 

 

Nothing wrong with hypotheticals, but acting like Buckner is a consolation is weird. He's a foundational player.

He is a foundational player. He's our best and most valuable defensive player on the roster IMO. But this still doesn't address if that's better than having a franchise QB like Herbert on a rookie deal... 

 

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

For Herbert/Wentz, if Herbert's successes fall back to the mean -- especially given how outlier-ish some of his production was -- and Wentz is back to 2019 status, it's a different conversation, right? 

 

Herbert might come back down to Earth on some of his unsustainable metrics from last year(3d down success, passing under pressure, etc.), but I also expect him to get better in other ways. It's only normal for a QB coming off a rookie year. In essence - I expect him to be a great QB going forward with development in some areas and regression in other. In other words - I expect him to be better than 2019 Wentz going forward and 19M cheaper than him too. Go get your favorite gettable FA in next year's FA for that money. 

 

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

What I'm saying is that if Wentz is good in 2021, then these hypotheticals are pointless. And that's what the Colts braintrust is counting on. I was a proponent of the Wentz trade before it happened, so that's what I'm hoping for as well. And it's not a longshot projection, he's a good player who was in a rotten situation. 

 

So it's not my default to say 'they could have done this better, and now we're forced to keep them for another three years' in response to these extensions. I think we have good guys running the show, and I'm glad to keep them. If they start showing serious faults, my thinking will change.

I mean even if Wentz is good those hypotheticals are still not pointless, because they shed light on just how much more advantageous it is to go get a franchise QB on rookie deal. Ultimately, if Wentz is good, we will survive not draining every drop of value out of the situation and I was right there with you as a proponent of that trade if you remember... as a second option to going to the draft. And if Wentz is good, we very likely will be a good team for the next several years... 

 

I guess my response to the extensions was one of a raised eyebrow, because I think a ton of whether they deserve those extensions depends on how Wentz turns out. And Irsay treated it like they've already hit on Wentz. But like we've said before in the thread - I'm not counting his money so... he's welcome to do as he wishes with it. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, shasta519 said:

 

I agree. But I think you will see the Wentz experiment either be a genius move if it works (hopefully)...or if it doesn't it will just be chalked up to another byproduct of Luck retiring and forcing Ballard's hands. 

 

People get hung up on the Luck retirement because it was so unique, but Ballard took the Colts job AFTER Luck just had major shoulder surgery. Luck getting back to health, let alone getting back to his prior version, was definitely a risk from the get-go. And him missing the entire 2017 calendar year (and traveling to Europe for "treatment") made it even more apparent.

 

So I mean to be fair...one could argue it was somewhat lucky to even get Luck back for 2018 under those circumstances. 

 

And even in his introductory conference in 2017, Ballard literally said "it will never be about one guy. It's about all 53 men in that locker room..."

 

Yet, so many fans (and media) use that "one guy" as an excuse. As if people forgot Ballard said this.

 

And it wasn't just words...because his strategy has followed that mindset. Invest in the draft and build up the entire roster. And that strategy involved making many decision (Rivers as a bridge QB, trading for DeFo instead of drafting a QB...and then of course trading for Wentz) that followed that path. And I am not saying those were bad moves, but they did impact the QB approach (which is what will likely decide this team's ceiling).

 

So I don't buy the "super unlucky" narrative...and I don't think Ballard does either. Luck retiring was certainly not his plan, but relying on Luck wasn't either, which is he has built the team the way he has...and I think we can judge that.

 

But from a team success standpoint, I have always said I will reserve my judgement until I see how Wentz works out. I am skeptical (for reasons I don't need to list again), but that means nothing. If Wentz works out, then the roster approach has been a huge success. If not, I think there should be some accountability.

 

This is so off kilter to me. 

 

Luck retiring isn't an excuse. There's little to excuse. Year 1 was a throwaway. Year 2, the Colts won a playoff game. Year 3, JB got hurt, and probably wasn't good enough. Year 4, back to the playoffs. Ballard's four years have been good enough, even with the Luck situation. Four seasons for Ballard, four different starting QBs, and that's not because Ballard did something wrong. Even if we drafted Herbert last year, you'd still be at three different starters in four years.

 

The only time Luck needs to be brought up is when people say 'we still don't know if we have a QB.' That's because we're two years removed from the guy everyone thought would be the QB retiring abruptly. That's a thing, and it matters, and it should be acknowledged. They pivoted to JB, moved off him to a guy that worked to a reasonable degree but everyone knew wasn't the long term answer, and now they've made a big move for a guy they hope will be around for a while. We haven't seen him play yet.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

We disagree on the bolded. I don't think the years remaining on Pagano's contract had very much to do with why he was retained. He fired Grigson with three years on his contract, just one year after extending him. 

 

You don't want to get into a situation where you're paying three HCs at one time, because you keep making bad hires that flame out in a year or two. But that wasn't close to being the case with the Colts.

 

I believe Pagano was retained because Irsay believed Grigson was the bigger issue, and he wanted Pagano to get a shot without Grigson in the way. And I think part of the reason we see this differently is because you believe Irsay and Colts have to do some financial stretching to handle bigger team expenses, and I do not. So we're probably just not gonna be on the same page here.

 

And when I say the length of the extension doesn't matter, I don't mean that in an absolute sense. Of course it matters for the parties involved. I just mean that having several years remaining on their contracts isn't enough to save them, if it becomes obvious that they're not doing a good job. 

Please notice I haven’t mentioned the Colts and finances once in this discussion.   And I’ve made plenty of posts about it.   The person who raised the issue is you. 
 

As to give Pagano “a shot”.   Let me see if I understand you….   You’re saying if Pagano had miraculously done well,  with no Andrew Luck,   Ballard and Irsay would’ve kept Pagano on as the teams head coach?    That’s your position?   

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, stitches said:

He is a foundational player. He's our best and most valuable defensive player on the roster IMO. But this still doesn't address if that's better than having a franchise QB like Herbert on a rookie deal... 

 

Herbert might come back down to Earth on some of his unsustainable metrics from last year(3d down success, passing under pressure, etc.), but I also expect him to get better in other ways. It's only normal for a QB coming off a rookie year. In essence - I expect him to be a great QB going forward with development in some areas and regression in other. In other words - I expect him to be better than 2019 Wentz going forward and 19M cheaper than him too. Go get your favorite gettable FA in next year's FA for that money. 

 

I mean even if Wentz is good those hypotheticals are still not pointless, because they shed light on just how much more advantageous it is to go get a franchise QB on rookie deal. Ultimately, if Wentz is good, we will survive not draining every drop of value out of the situation and I was right there with you as a proponent of that trade if you remember... as a second option to going to the draft. And if Wentz is good, we very likely will be a good team for the next several years... 

 

I guess my response to the extensions was one of a raised eyebrow, because I think a ton of whether they deserve those extensions depends on how Wentz turns out. And Irsay treated it like they've already hit on Wentz. But like we've said before in the thread - I'm not counting his money so... he's welcome to do as he wishes with it. 

 

I think the whole franchise QB on a rookie deal thing is a little overstated, although it's very desirable. You still need to get the right guy. You also need good/great players at other positions, and the Colts haven't been stacking top ten picks like other teams tend to do before they get their franchise QB. The Chargers, for example, haven't done anything with their guy yet, they have a roster that still needs some work, and they have the good situation of already having a top five edge rusher on the team. 

 

Just to kick the dead horse, I think Buckner is better than your favorite gettable FA, and I don't think you get a guy of his caliber at his position in FA, period. Maybe you can be more creative getting Buckner, while giving up other resources (like a good player), and still be in position to make the Herbert trade. Or maybe you do the Buckner deal, then follow up with a trade up in 2021 for Fields, which I think was probably one of the ideas they considered, based on comments from Reich and Ballard this offseason. But if you want Buckner, or a player of his caliber, you have do more than wait for FA.

 

Last thing, I think Irsay extended them the way he did because he's confident he has the right guys in place. And that's about more than just whether Wentz or any QB is the right guy, it's not about whether we have a future LT. It's about team building, chemistry, leadership, etc. Executing the plan is obviously essential, and while we can second guess and what-if all day long, I don't think there have been any major misgivings with their execution, so far. 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Please notice I haven’t mentioned the Colts and finances once in this discussion.   And I’ve made plenty of posts about it.   The person who raised the issue is you. 
 

As to give Pagano “a shot”.   Let me see if I understand you….   You’re saying if Pagano had miraculously done well,  with no Andrew Luck,   Ballard and Irsay would’ve kept Pagano on as the teams head coach?    That’s your position?   

 

Let's not try to separate our own respective standings on the Colts and finances from a discussion in which it's relevant. You're saying Irsay didn't want to have to eat three dead years on Pagano's contract; separately, you've said the Colts make contract decisions that are influenced by a limited cash flow. Those are related, no?

 

So when I say I don't think Irsay was worried about eating a third dead year on Pagano's deal -- it's not ideal, but it wasn't the major consideration in his decision, IMO -- it's partly because I don't think Irsay is or has been seriously worried about cash flow. Like I said, I think those two things are obviously related.

 

As for Pagano's shot, don't forget the Colts expected Luck to play in 2017. It would not have been a miracle to see a relatively successful season in that circumstance. Instead, they started Tolzien, then replaced him after Week 1 with JB, who had been on the roster for two weeks. That's obviously not how they expected things to go.

 

And if the team had a good year in 2017 with Pagano, yes, I think there's a strong chance he would have stayed another year. There's nothing sensational about that stance.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

3 hours ago, IrsaysArmy said:

I also think Reich is a little more on the hook when it comes to Carson. I’m not sure we go out and get Carson with Reich. So if Wentz does fail I don’t think Ballard will take all that heat. 

Ballard has talked a lot about how much he liked Carson when the chiefs scouted  him in 2016. But he went too high.

[throwing BBZ]

46 minutes ago, stitches said:

He is a foundational player. He's our best and most valuable defensive player on the roster IMO. But this still doesn't address if that's better than having a franchise QB like Herbert on a rookie deal... 

 

 

Herbert might come back down to Earth on some of his unsustainable metrics from last year(3d down success, passing under pressure, etc.), but I also expect him to get better in other ways. It's only normal for a QB coming off a rookie year. In essence - I expect him to be a great QB going forward with development in some areas and regression in other. In other words - I expect him to be better than 2019 Wentz going forward and 19M cheaper than him too. Go get your favorite gettable FA in next year's FA for that money. 

 

I mean even if Wentz is good those hypotheticals are still not pointless, because they shed light on just how much more advantageous it is to go get a franchise QB on rookie deal. Ultimately, if Wentz is good, we will survive not draining every drop of value out of the situation and I was right there with you as a proponent of that trade if you remember... as a second option to going to the draft. And if Wentz is good, we very likely will be a good team for the next several years... 

 

I guess my response to the extensions was one of a raised eyebrow, because I think a ton of whether they deserve those extensions depends on how Wentz turns out. And Irsay treated it like they've already hit on Wentz. But like we've said before in the thread - I'm not counting his money so... he's welcome to do as he wishes with it. 

 

 Stitches you are a great poster.
 I find  it bizarre though that you are beating a dead horse on a hypothetical trade. So i guess we will hold Irsay accountable for the Wentz trade if it doesn't meet a bunch of fanboy GM's measure.

[NewColtsFan]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Let's not try to separate our own respective standings on the Colts and finances from a discussion in which it's relevant. You're saying Irsay didn't want to have to eat three dead years on Pagano's contract; separately, you've said the Colts make contract decisions that are influenced by a limited cash flow. Those are related, no?

 

So when I say I don't think Irsay was worried about eating a third dead year on Pagano's deal -- it's not ideal, but it wasn't the major consideration in his decision, IMO -- it's partly because I don't think Irsay is or has been seriously worried about cash flow. Like I said, I think those two things are obviously related.

 

As for Pagano's shot, don't forget the Colts expected Luck to play in 2017. It would not have been a miracle to see a relatively successful season in that circumstance. Instead, they started Tolzien, then replaced him after Week 1 with JB, who had been on the roster for two weeks. That's obviously not how they expected things to go.

 

And if the team had a good year in 2017 with Pagano, yes, I think there's a strong chance he would have stayed another year. There's nothing sensational about that stance.

Honestly, no.   The two are not related.   Certainly not in my argument.  Because most owners regardless of their cash flow issues don’t want to pay one HC for three more years and, at the same time pay another new HC.   That’s a big payout for anyone.   I’m not trying to be cute or clever here.  I didn’t bring up the Colts issue because I think it would be the same for any owner.   That’s why you rarely see such a thing. 

 

As to giving Pagano a shot, I guess we will have to agree to disagree again.   I don’t wish to list all the same reasons I listed on a different post already with a different poster.  I assume you’ve seen those posts and disagree even though you haven’t referenced them.   Fair enough, we disagree on this.   
 

Color me stunned TWICE in less than 24 hours.    Wowza.   Sigh…. 

[stitches]

15 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Stitches you are a great poster.
 I find  it bizarre though that you are beating a dead horse on a hypothetical trade. So i guess we will hold Irsay accountable for the Wentz trade if it doesn't meet a bunch of fanboy GM's measure.

Oh I'm done beating that horse. I've said my piece. Just a final remark on your comment about holding Irsay accountable. We hold sports GMs accountable for tons and tons of decisions they make. I see no reason why they shouldn't be held accountable for that particular one. Is there any reason for us to close our eyes on this specific one? And mind you, I perfectly understand that no GM is perfect and noone bats a 100%... I also understand that there is a sliding scale on just how good or bad a trade is and that a decision doesn't need to be the absolute perfect one in order for it to be a good one. For example, if Wentz is good and becomes our franchise QB, I would consider that a good decision and a good trade, even if one of the alternatives(lets say Fields), becomes similar player and better option for trade than Wentz. You cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. Ideally a GM will consistently make good decisions and that will bring up the quality of the whole roster over the long term even if they don't make the perfect decision every time. 

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, EastStreet said:

I wish we knew the terms of both the last contracts, and both the new contracts. I think someone said Ballard was in a contract year, so I can understand his extension. I'm not sure if Reich was in a contract year, or still had a year to go.

 

Overall, I'm a lot more optimistic long term with Ballard, than I am with Reich. Reich has a lot of fantastic qualities that I love, but he's also has some areas that give me pause.

I looked up Reich being hired and stories said he received a 5-year contract.   This is his 4th year.   So he was originally signed thru 22.  
 

Ballards 5 years took him thru this season. 
 

Now they are synced thru 26.  

[DougDew]

4 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Overall, I'm a lot more optimistic long term with Ballard, than I am with Reich. Reich has a lot of fantastic qualities that I love, but he's also has some areas that give me pause.

I think Irsay looks at Reich and sees the right person for the job, who can grow beyond whatever mistakes he has made during the games up to this point.  But step back and look at the big picture of what he has had to work with.  The Oline was consistent, that's it.

 

His QBs have been either incompetent or limited.  Ebron inconsistent and Doyle hurt.  Pascal was at times the second best receiver and TY has been gimpy.  His RBs have not been very well rounded until JT grew a bit in the second half of the season.

 

The offensive ball handlers have been a constant rotation of average players to players on the decline who get dinged up.  I think Frank has done very well with what he has had to work with up to this point.

 

This TC has probably been the most positive TC in terms of what we've seen with offensive skilled position players since the Polian years, and we've seen this with only the backup QBs practicing.

 

I see Frank as the guy who has held the offense together during the time Ballard is fussing around with inconsistent draft picks.  And I like Ballard.

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Honestly, no.   The two are not related.   Certainly not in my argument.  Because most owners regardless of their cash flow issues don’t want to pay one HC for three more years and, at the same time pay another new HC.   That’s a big payout for anyone.   I’m not trying to be cute or clever here.  I didn’t bring up the Colts issue because I think it would be the same for any owner.   That’s why you rarely see such a thing. 

 

As to giving Pagano a shot, I guess we will have to agree to disagree again.   I don’t wish to list all the same reasons I listed on a different post already with a different poster.  I assume you’ve seen those posts and disagree even though you haven’t referenced them.   Fair enough, we disagree on this.   
 

Color me stunned TWICE in less than 24 hours.    Wowza.   Sigh…. 

 

I'm fine with disagreeing. I felt like our difference of opinion when it comes to cash flow was a relevant consideration, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. But if I know you don't like pasta, and you say that the Italian place around the corner has a terrible menu, I'm going to assume your opinion of pasta is a major factor.

 

Let me just ask for your thoughts on this, if you don't mind sharing, then we can move on. Why was Irsay okay with getting rid of Grigson with three years left, but not Pagano? I mean, we agree, no owner wants to pay two or three dead years, for a coach or a GM. But he did just that with Grigson. So what's the difference?

[NewColtsFan]

8 hours ago, stitches said:

That's fair. You still would have the 21M of capspace though. You could use that on pretty much anyone you choose in FA. Along with the 19M difference between Wentz and rookie contract. 40M of capspace is no joke. This is not for 1 year. This is for the duration of Buckner's and Wentz' contracts. You can get/keep a ton of talent with that. 

 

Still... with all the uncertainty in Herbert going forward - if you could have Herbert or Wentz right now on their respective deals. Who are you choosing? 

 

Also, yeah... I'm not sure such a move was available and if available I'm not sure it would be at that price. To me this was the biggest point of contention. 

 

 

I'm not non-chalantly tossing Buckner in and out of those scenarios. He's the main piece of them. But he is in those scenarios along with the other pieces we would have lost/gained. I'm not seeing a lot of talk about the 40M of capspace difference in those scenarios though. 40M for 4 years! This is %ton of money you can use in tons of ways to make your team better. This is in addition to having a young franchise QB. 

What I don’t understand about your $40 million dollars to spend on free agency argument is this….    You refer to it as if Ballard would find this attractive.  He’s now in his 5th year and I think he’s clearly demonstrated he does NOT want to build his franchise vis FA, he wants to do it via the draft and very selective other moves.    So $40m to spend doesn’t strike me as an argument that would appeal to CB.   That’s my viewpoint. 

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

What I don’t understand about your $40 million dollars to spend on free agency argument is this….    You refer to it as if Ballard would find this attractive.  He’s now in his 5th year and I think he’s clearly demonstrated he does NOT want to build his franchise vis FA, he wants to do it via the draft and very selective other moves.    So $40m to spend doesn’t strike me as an argument that would appeal to CB.   That’s my viewpoint. 

Then consider it 40M more you can use on your own players. Soon we will start losing players of our own we like because we cannot afford them. We also don't completely ignore FA. Ballard has made some timely signings in FA too. 

[NewColtsFan]

15 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm fine with disagreeing. I felt like our difference of opinion when it comes to cash flow was a relevant consideration, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. But if I know you don't like pasta, and you say that the Italian place around the corner has a terrible menu, I'm going to assume your opinion of pasta is a major factor.

 

Let me just ask for your thoughts on this, if you don't mind sharing, then we can move on. Why was Irsay okay with getting rid of Grigson with three years left, but not Pagano? I mean, we agree, no owner wants to pay two or three dead years, for a coach or a GM. But he did just that with Grigson. So what's the difference?

I think the difference is Grigson was judged to be the vast majority of the problem that had to be dealt with.   Keeping them both was no longer an option.   Firing them both was possible, but I think Irsay wanted to be a good guy and try and give Pagano a chance to rehab his professional reputation since it took a beating with his two 8-8 seasons. 
 

I believe Irsay knew we had a major rebuild in front of us, multiple years, no quick fix.  I believe he knew 2012 was highly unlikely to happen again.   So there was no harm done to giving Pagano a year.   If Pags had given us a Coach of the Year type of performance, I suppose they could’ve allowed him to stay another year, or let him leave for a better opportunity elsewhere. 
 

But the fact that Pags philosophies on both offense and defense are the opposite of Ballard’s leads me to conclude that CB would never have stayed with Pagano as his first hire with a long-term contract.   Round peg, square hole.   They don’t fit. 
 

I don’t believe Irsay was about to hire the number one GM candidate of 2017, and would even ask him to consider making Pagano his permanent head coach.   I think that would’ve been a deal breaker.   I think everyone finessed things and said all the right things.  I believe everyone told a white lie and put on a show in 2017, because it was in the best interest of everyone.  
 

Apologies, this was likely much longer than you expected. 

[shasta519]

12 minutes ago, stitches said:

Then consider it 40M more you can use on your own players. Soon we will start losing players of our own we like because we cannot afford them. We also don't completely ignore FA. Ballard has made some timely signings in FA too. 

 

We really don't know what Ballard would do with a rookie deal QB. He hasn't been in that situation since he got here...and wasn't in that situation in KC either.

 

What I don't get is the aversion to having money for FA, while simultaneously liking the idea of trading for a vet QB (especially in those circumstances).

 

Many people don't like FA because they see players as getting overpaid. Those players aren't worth it...and the draft is more important and more valuable to team building. Not to mention Ballard is good at it.

 

Case in point...this offseason with ERs. Not paying FA ERs and drafting Paye/Dayo was seen as the right course by many.

 

Yet, at the most important position in the sport, suddenly going through the draft is no longer the approach?

 

[Four2itus]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

Cap space helps you get good players; if we have good players accounting for that cap space, why are we what-if'ing it?

 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

The "what-if"-ing takes the tone of 'they messed this up,' and that's why I object. I have zero issue with giving up those resources for Buckner, he is the kind of player that's worth it. Ballard made that move because he wasn't ready to go all in on a rookie QB, yet. 

 

Nothing wrong with hypotheticals, but acting like Buckner is a consolation is weird. He's a foundational player.

Darn...but I wish more people understood these takes. 

 

As far as Buckner vs Herbert, it serves no opportunity in hind sight because only half of the equation is reliable. Buckner HAS succeeded with the Colts. Therefore, it was the move to be made. There is no way to know that Herbert would have the success with the Colts that he has had with his team. Every experience can turn out differently. If Buckner had succeeded with another team, there would at least be 2 unknowns and perhaps more equal, and worthy of a debate. (not it my mind because I still find those discussions aimless). 

[IrsaysArmy]

28 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

What I don’t understand about your $40 million dollars to spend on free agency argument is this….    You refer to it as if Ballard would find this attractive.  He’s now in his 5th year and I think he’s clearly demonstrated he does NOT want to build his franchise vis FA, he wants to do it via the draft and very selective other moves.    So $40m to spend doesn’t strike me as an argument that would appeal to CB.   That’s my viewpoint. 

Agreed. I’m sure It would be 40 million spent wisely but there wouldn’t be any splurges.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think the difference is Grigson was judged to be the vast majority of the problem that had to be dealt with.   Keeping them both was no longer an option.   Firing them both was possible, but I think Irsay wanted to be a good guy and try and give Pagano a chance to rehab his professional reputation since it took a beating with his two 8-8 seasons. 
 

I believe Irsay knew we had a major rebuild in front of us, multiple years, no quick fix.  I believe he knew 2012 was highly unlikely to happen again.   So there was no harm done to giving Pagano a year.   If Pags had given us a Coach of the Year type of performance, I suppose they could’ve allowed him to stay another year, or let him leave for a better opportunity elsewhere. 
 

But the fact that Pags philosophies on both offense and defense are the opposite of Ballard’s leads me to conclude that CB would never have stayed with Pagano as his first hire with a long-term contract.   Round peg, square hole.   They don’t fit. 
 

I don’t believe Irsay was about to hire the number one GM candidate of 2017, and would even ask him to consider making Pagano his permanent head coach.   I think that would’ve been a deal breaker.   I think everyone finessed things and said all the right things.  I believe everyone told a white lie and put on a show in 2017, because it was in the best interest of everyone.  
 

Apologies, this was likely much longer than you expected. 

 

I think Ballard was hired with the knowledge that Pagano was in place for 2017, at Irsay's directive, and then let's see what's happens. You're acknowledging that it's a complicated situation, and it's probably not as simple as 'maybe Pagano is good without Grigson's influence,' and I don't disagree with that approach.

 

What I'm really asking, which you didn't quite get to the heart of in your response, is whether Irsay not wanting to eat three dead years for Pagano was really a major factor. And if it was, why he was willing to do so for Grigson, but not Pagano. No owner wants to eat three dead years, but Irsay did it in Grigson's case. I believe it's like you said, Grigson was judged to be the problem, so he had to go. 

 

So as it relates to these new extensions, I think if Irsay believes Ballard and/or Reich is a problem, and have to go, it won't matter how many years are left on their deals. It will not be ideal to get rid of anyone with multiple years remaining, but he's done it before. Grigson had to go, Irsay ate three dead years (minus offsets) and moved on. Pagano had to go, Irsay ate two years (also not ideal) and moved on.

 

But yeah, overall, these guys are signed for the next six years. That's a huge vote of confidence in their leadership, and all I'm doing is hoping that they get it right. Dead contract years or not, it sucks to change your GM or head coach.

[DougDew]

17 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think the difference is Grigson was judged to be the vast majority of the problem that had to be dealt with.   Keeping them both was no longer an option.   Firing them both was possible, but I think Irsay wanted to be a good guy and try and give Pagano a chance to rehab his professional reputation since it took a beating with his two 8-8 seasons. 
 

I believe Irsay knew we had a major rebuild in front of us, multiple years, no quick fix.  I believe he knew 2012 was highly unlikely to happen again.   So there was no harm done to giving Pagano a year.   If Pags had given us a Coach of the Year type of performance, I suppose they could’ve allowed him to stay another year, or let him leave for a better opportunity elsewhere. 
 

But the fact that Pags philosophies on both offense and defense are the opposite of Ballard’s leads me to conclude that CB would never have stayed with Pagano as his first hire with a long-term contract.   Round peg, square hole.   They don’t fit. 
 

I don’t believe Irsay was about to hire the number one GM candidate of 2017, and would even ask him to consider making Pagano his permanent head coach.   I think that would’ve been a deal breaker.   I think everyone finessed things and said all the right things.  I believe everyone told a white lie and put on a show in 2017, because it was in the best interest of everyone.  
 

Apologies, this was likely much longer than you expected. 

You guys are taking the approach that Irsay fired Pagano.  IIRC, the moment Ballard came on Irsay said that Ballard had the full reigns for coaching decision (BTW, Irsay never ever said that Grigson had it).

 

So I think part of this is Ballard wanted to give Pags a shot.....partly....because CB knew that he himself needed a year to sort out the roster and settle in as GM.   Firing Pags right away to then put yourself into a scramble to find some one on short notice makes it tough for a GM to perform patient due diligence on the candidates and the team itself.

 

Plus, that new HC would have had questions with Luck's health.   Pags was a lame duck out of circumstance, IMO, but I think Ballard had just as much to do with that as Irsay, if not more.

[stitches]

31 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

We really don't know what Ballard would do with a rookie deal QB. He hasn't been in that situation since he got here...and wasn't in that situation in KC either.

 

What I don't get is the aversion to having money for FA, while simultaneously liking the idea of trading for a vet QB (especially in those circumstances).

 

Many people don't like FA because they see players as getting overpaid. Those players aren't worth it...and the draft is more important and more valuable to team building. Not to mention Ballard is good at it.

 

Case in point...this offseason with ERs. Not paying FA ERs and drafting Paye/Dayo was seen as the right course by many.

 

Yet, at the most important position in the sport, suddenly going through the draft is no longer the approach?

 

Yeah, the intuitions of a lot of people about the QB position are wildly out of wack. I've seen people advocating for foregoing drafting a QB early and instead trying to sneak in some steal on day 3. I've seen people advocating for going for bargain bin QBs in trades/FA. The most important position in football and people are reluctant to give up premier value for it or make a big bet with it. People were clamoring for drafting a DT only so we don't draft a QB in the 1st. I've seen it all... from "why not instead draft Anthony Gordon in the 5th or Cole McDonald in the 7th" to "well, QBs drafted in the 1st bust half the time"(like any other position doesn't bust at about the same rate).... 

 

Oh well... it's done now and hopefully we won't have to worry about it for a while...

[NewColtsFan]

46 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think Ballard was hired with the knowledge that Pagano was in place for 2017, at Irsay's directive, and then let's see what's happens. You're acknowledging that it's a complicated situation, and it's probably not as simple as 'maybe Pagano is good without Grigson's influence,' and I don't disagree with that approach.

 

What I'm really asking, which you didn't quite get to the heart of in your response, is whether Irsay not wanting to eat three dead years for Pagano was really a major factor. And if it was, why he was willing to do so for Grigson, but not Pagano. No owner wants to eat three dead years, but Irsay did it in Grigson's case. I believe it's like you said, Grigson was judged to be the problem, so he had to go. 

 

So as it relates to these new extensions, I think if Irsay believes Ballard and/or Reich is a problem, and have to go, it won't matter how many years are left on their deals. It will not be ideal to get rid of anyone with multiple years remaining, but he's done it before. Grigson had to go, Irsay ate three dead years (minus offsets) and moved on. Pagano had to go, Irsay ate two years (also not ideal) and moved on.

 

But yeah, overall, these guys are signed for the next six years. That's a huge vote of confidence in their leadership, and all I'm doing is hoping that they get it right. Dead contract years or not, it sucks to change your GM or head coach.

I’m sorry….   Didn’t mean to avoid your question.   Wasn’t deliberate.    
 

I think Irsay was willing to give Pagano another year as he was judged to be the victim of Grigson’s meddling, controlling ways.   Plus, it allowed Ballard to start building his franchise from players to scouts and other executive types like Decker.  It was always going to be a marathon and not a sprint, so there was no harm letting Pagano do his thing whike everything else was out into order.   And Irsay saved money while doing so, more if you include any assistant coaches that also didn’t need to be bought out.  
 

It was a win-win-win situation for Irsay, Ballard and Pagano.   All upside, no downside for the three of them. 
 

Hope that more addresses your question…

[shasta519]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

Yeah, the intuitions of a lot of people about the QB positions are wildly out of wack. I've seen people advocating for foregoing drafting a QB early and instead trying to sneak in some steal on day 3. I've seen people advocating for going for bargain bin QBs in trades/FA. The most important position in football and people are reluctant to give up premier value for it or make a big bet with it. People were clamoring for drafting a DT only so we don't draft a QB in the 1st. I've seen it all... from "why not instead draft Anthony Gordon in the 5th or Cole McDonald in the 7th" to "well, QBs drafted in the 1st bust half the time"(like any other position doesn't bust at about the same rate).... 

 

Oh well... it's done now and hopefully we won't have to worry about it for a while...

 

Exactly my thoughts. Sort of counter-intuitive, especially given the value placed on the draft now (mainly since 2018).

[Superman]

30 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I’m sorry….   Didn’t mean to avoid your question.   Wasn’t deliberate.    
 

I think Irsay was willing to give Pagano another year as he was judged to be the victim of Grigson’s meddling, controlling ways.   Plus, it allowed Ballard to start building his franchise from players to scouts and other executive types like Decker.  It was always going to be a marathon and not a sprint, so there was no harm letting Pagano do his thing whike everything else was out into order.   And Irsay saved money while doing so, more if you include any assistant coaches that also didn’t need to be bought out.  
 

It was a win-win-win situation for Irsay, Ballard and Pagano.   All upside, no downside for the three of them. 
 

Hope that more addresses your question…

 

Got it. 

 

What's interesting is that if you listen to Grigson's take (per his interview with Dakich a couple months ago), it was Pagano doing the meddling and controlling. Lots of finger pointing between those two. I'm glad they're gone.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

Yeah, the intuitions of a lot of people about the QB position are wildly out of wack. I've seen people advocating for foregoing drafting a QB early and instead trying to sneak in some steal on day 3. I've seen people advocating for going for bargain bin QBs in trades/FA. The most important position in football and people are reluctant to give up premier value for it or make a big bet with it. People were clamoring for drafting a DT only so we don't draft a QB in the 1st. I've seen it all... from "why not instead draft Anthony Gordon in the 5th or Cole McDonald in the 7th" to "well, QBs drafted in the 1st bust half the time"(like any other position doesn't bust at about the same rate).... 

 

Oh well... it's done now and hopefully we won't have to worry about it for a while...

 

I know it wasn't directed at me, but personally, I have no problem with giving up major resources for "the guy" at QB, but you better be right, because it's going to cost you multiple firsts, and potential difference makers on your roster. Either that or you have to be in the top five of the draft to have a real shot.

 

My only objection is that some people make it seem like getting a potential franchise QB on a rookie deal is the only logical way to solve for a QB, anything else is half-stepping and a waste of time. And there's some balance lacking on that side of the discussion as well.