Chris Ballard and Frank Reich given extensions through 2026

[LJpalmbeacher2]

4 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

  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!!!

 

So it's not on Ballard when his draftees FAIL to become good players, it's on them. .....But it's Griggs fault if his 4th & 5th year draft class didn't contribute..... 

Ok, I got it now. 

[NewColtsFan]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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.

Been a football fan for roughly 55 years.  And in all my years of fandom I had never heard about such a thing.   Though I’m sure it’s happened before, this was the only time it became so public that Irsay admitted he brought in (for lack of a better term) a marriage counselor to try and help them get along better.  
 

I thought once it became THAT public, there was no saving either one.  A clean break was needed by all.   Glad we all got it.  I’m glad Pagano had some success with Chicago before retiring.   I don’t wish Grigson any Ill, he’s got a family to take care of.  He just shouldn’t be a GM.   Something in the scouting community would appear to be his ceiling.  Fine.   
 

Ultimately, I’m glad we appear to have finally gotten the GM and the HC settled with great guys.  Now, if we can just keep our players somewhat healthy we might just be alright. 
 

Thanks again. 

[NewColtsFan]

25 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

So it's not on Ballard when his draftees FAIL to become good players, it's on them. .....But it's Griggs fault if his 4th & 5th year draft class didn't contribute..... 

Ok, I got it now. 

Of course, almost everything here isn’t true, but you like amusing yourself with your unique sense of humor.   Enjoy.

 

But laughing doesn’t make this true,  because it’s not, and that’s not opinion, it’s facts. 

[stitches]

45 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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.

The beauty of it is... if you have no franchise QB you are most likely treading water and will never be a legit contender, it's just REALLY REALLY hard to contend without one... so it ultimately doesn't matter if you spend major resources on a QB and he fails or you spend the same major resources on non-QBs while not having and needing a franchise QB. Sure, you might have slightly better roster with the 2 out of 4 non-QBs you draft with those major assets panning out(about average hit rate on every position in the first 2 rounds)... but if anything, it just makes it even harder to get in position to draft the franchise QB. 

 

About whether the draft is the only option - well, obviously it's not. But it's the most realistic one. Franchise QBs are extremely rarely traded and even more rarely hit FA, and in most cases there are serious reasons and considerable risks associated with them.

 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Been a football fan for roughly 55 years.  And in all my years of fandom I had never heard about such a thing.   Though I’m sure it’s happened before, this was the only time it became so public that Irsay admitted he brought in (for lack of a better term) a marriage counselor to try and help them get along better.  
 

I thought once it became THAT public, there was no saving either one.  A clean break was needed by all.   Glad we all got it.  I’m glad Pagano had some success with Chicago before retiring.   I don’t wish Grigson any Ill, he’s got a family to take care of.  He just shouldn’t be a GM.   Something in the scouting community would appear to be his ceiling.  Fine.   
 

Ultimately, I’m glad we appear to have finally gotten the GM and the HC settled with great guys.  Now, if we can just keep our players somewhat healthy we might just be alright. 
 

Thanks again. 

 

Irsay did everything he could to make that work, and in hindsight, he should have gotten rid of both after 2015. 

[throwing BBZ]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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.

 

 The people that want Ballard to "make a big bet" are talking about holding him accountable for NOT making big bets. And Ballard says Big Bet Mistakes get YOU FIRED!  Ballards Team grades the prospects, He ways the cost of moving up, which i believe he finds out if he is interested then he goes forward. The End!.
 Because of experience, his roster is likely to still be a year away.
 He is making Irsay's, Franks, and his solid bet building a ROCK of a Foundation. You are always rolling the dice because young men.
 He is looking B+ right now knowing what Reich & He believes after adapting post Rivers. 
 

 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

The beauty of it is... if you have no franchise QB you are most likely treading water and will never be a legit contender, so it ultimately doesn't matter if you spend major resources on a QB and he fails or you spend the same major resources on non-QBs while not having and needing a franchise QB. Sure, you might have slightly better roster with the 2 out of 4 non-QBs you draft with those major assets panning out... but if anything, it just makes it even harder to get in position to draft the franchise QB. 

 

About whether the draft is the only option - well, obviously it's not. But it's the most realistic one. Franchise QBs are extremely rarely traded and even more rarely hit FA, and in most cases there are serious reasons and considerable risks associated with them.

 

Like Wentz. I think it's a little less certain than any rookie, and cost less draft capital. If it doesn't work, less sunk cost, and you still have draft capital to try again. No matter what, if your guy isn't good, you're stuck.

 

To the bolded, the difference is that if you flounder for a couple years with a QB who isn't good enough, you still have some draft capital to go get another guy. The Rams did this with Goff, then upgraded to Stafford. The Bears just did this to get Fields.

 

If Trey Lance is bad, the Niners have given up their firsts for two more years, plus other picks. It's a good thing they still have JG; if not, they'd really be stuck. It's also a good thing Trey Lance is probably the real deal. 

[stitches]

45 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Like Wentz. I think it's a little less certain than any rookie, and cost less draft capital. If it doesn't work, less sunk cost, and you still have draft capital to try again. No matter what, if your guy isn't good, you're stuck.

I think we are kind of lucky that Wentz was even available. Relatively young, relatively healthy, with resume and having played at MVP level before... those usually don't hit the trade market... now he has risks and concerns of other variety(coachability, deteriorating mechanics, questions about leadership and mental approach)... but even with those we are in lucky spot to have the coach who actually seems to have connected the best with him in the past. 

 

I wonder what Ballard would have done if Wentz was not available... do we go into the draft without a QB like the Bears did? Does he go after Darnold? Or someone else? 

 

About the draft compensation for Wentz - with him we are not just giving up draft capital, we are giving up 25M salary too. I keep bringing this up, because people just gloss over that. Wentz is over 20M more expensive per year than Fields for example. Think of it like this - the Texans gave up a second round pick to dump 17M contract of Osweiller. You can absorb 5 of those for the duration of Wentz and Fields' contracts. So yes, you gave up less draft capital on the front end, but you are also paying him money that has certain value beyond Irsay's checkbook. 

 

Quote

To the bolded, the difference is that if you flounder for a couple years with a QB who isn't good enough, you still have some draft capital to go get another guy. The Rams did this with Goff, then upgraded to Stafford. The Bears just did this to get Fields.

Well, whether you flounder for couple of years with a QB who isn't good enough or with a QB you gave up draft picks for, you very likely end up in the same place - on year 3 or 4 you will have no franchise QB and will have all your picks going forward intact in order to pursue that new QB. BTW the Rams paid tons for Goff... and ultimately ended up in the same position as if they didn't - with their 1st round picks for the following years being used for a new franchise QB(just in their case they gave the 2 future 1sts +2nd for a vet, not for a draft pick). 

Quote

If Trey Lance is bad, the Niners have given up their firsts for two more years, plus other picks. It's a good thing they still have JG; if not, they'd really be stuck. It's also a good thing Trey Lance is probably the real deal. 

The things is... by the time they know whether Lance is going to be great or not, all those picks they gave up will be in the rear-view mirror and they will have their picks going forward(unless they trade them again). That's the thing...

 

Lets say Ballard used 2021, 2022 and 2023 first +some player to trade up for Lance. First 2 years are complete carte blanche. It's extremely rare to invest this many picks and give up on a QB before the 3d year. And if he shows pretty much ANYTHING ... any glimpse in year 2 he will get year 3 too(think Darnold). That year 3 is 2023. The last year you have pending draft obligations. The following draft you have all your picks intact. If he looks like he's not the guy, you are good to go onto the next QB. 

 

I think people make mistake of thinking about the draft picks rather than the years... You are not really losing draft picks here with failed QBs. You are losing years. In essence a failed high draft pick of a QB likely loses you about 3 years... and the worst type of draft pick of a QB is the one that actually gives you some hopes and is mediocre enough to fool you to give him more than those 3 years(Darnold). IMO if in year 3 the QB you draft does not look like a franchise QB, you should move on. 

[shasta519]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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.

 

But "good enough" isn't great though. And "great" seems to be the majority perception. And when anybody questions the overall team success and past performance to this point, Luck gets brought up. You can even see it in this thread.

 

And not to argue semantics, but if it's not an excuse, then it's an excuse-adjacent. Because those responses definitely serve to lessen the blame or justify why this team hasn't had more team success. Even in your post, you said it was "not Ballard's fault."

 

We all have our own definitions of team success I guess, but considering this is a competitive sport, there's a pretty clear goal for teams that are competitive.

 

Luck retiring two years ago has been acknowledged. But it should also be acknowledged that it was TWO full offseasons ago (which is a not short amount of time in the NFL). So we should really be past the point now of mentioning it after we see how Wentz plays. This has been my argument all along.

 

I think there's reason for optimism, as well big red flags. But this is the path they chose and I think we should judge that in time. I also think it's fair to judge the merits of acquiring Wentz vs. drafting a QB, which I have and will continue to do. Most people don't want to have that conversation.

 

But as I said to Jared, I don't think it's likely Wentz gets judged like that. And I already see people saying "what else could he have done."

 

 

 

 

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

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.

 

Thinking it's the MOST logical way is not really the same as thinking it's the ONLY logical way. Though I admit there are probably people who see it that way. But you also have people who see it as illogical to even to do it. So that balance is needed on both sides.

 

But even with the risks, drafting a QB is the most tried-and-true method, especially for a team looking compete long-term (as has been the stated goal by Irsay). 

 

But it doesn't have to be a philosophy either. It can be a case-by-case basis. For example, I think preferring to draft a QB vs. trade for a guy like Wentz (with his red flags) is a pretty logical way to lean. But that's just me.

 

Either way, we get to see if trading for one works in this case.

 

 

[throwing BBZ]

3 hours 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?

 

  

  Nothing changes. Drafting this QB is dependant on how you grade them and what the cost is. You people, to keep beating on this question must believe Ballard and his staff don't waste their time evaluating the QB position.
 Plum *'in goofy!
 They knew Wentz was available, wanted to come here, pre-draft.
 And smiling about it like the chesire cat. Then it was all about paying as little as possible. When both sides were just a little unhappy, he became a Colt!
 

[Superman]

29 minutes ago, stitches said:

I wonder what Ballard would have done if Wentz was not available... do we go into the draft without a QB like the Bears did? Does he go after Darnold? Or someone else? 

 

My assumption, based on comments made, is that they would have considered trading up this year. I would have liked Stafford, but it sounds like they weren't as interested as the Rams, and kind of got boxed out on that one. Maybe they would have been more engaged if the Wentz situation wasn't percolating, but I don't know.

 

Darnold shouldn't have been a consideration, IMO. We'll see what happens this year; even this weekend we'll get a nice look at him.

 

Quote

About the draft compensation for Wentz - with him we are not just giving up draft capital, we are giving up 25M salary too. I keep bringing this up, because people just gloss over that. Wentz is over 20M more expensive per year than Fields for example. Think of it like this - the Texans gave up a second round pick to dump 17M contract of Osweiller. You can absorb 5 of those for the duration of Wentz and Fields' contracts. So yes, you gave up less draft capital on the front end, but you are also paying him money that has certain value beyond Irsay's checkbook. 

 

I'm not glossing over it, others might. It just hasn't really been my point so far. Still, you can solve for cap space easier than you can solve for multiple blown first rounders. I don't want to have to solve for either, but if I had to choose, I'd rather have a bunch of good picks and be short on cap space, than the other way around.

 

Quote

 

Well, whether you flounder for couple of years with a QB who isn't good enough or with a QB you gave up draft picks for, you very likely end up in the same place - on year 3 or 4 you will have no franchise QB and will have all your picks going forward intact in order to pursue that new QB. BTW the Rams paid tons for Goff... and ultimately ended up in the same position as if they didn't - with their 1st round picks for the following years being used for a new franchise QB(just in their case they gave the 2 future 1sts +2nd for a vet, not for a draft pick). 

The things is... by the time they know whether Lance is going to be great or not, all those picks they gave up will be in the rear-view mirror and they will have their picks going forward(unless they trade them again). That's the thing...

 

 

The Rams had Goff for five years, and he wasn't a problem for them until recently. If you get to a SB with your heavily leveraged QB, you're probably thinking things are okay, and you have a chance to reset at QB if you want, but probably not right away. If the Rams had felt Goff was a bust after Year 3, and traded a bunch of picks for another QB, they don't have Ramsey. They also needed Goff to have some kind of value -- not be a bust, in other words -- to make the Stafford deal work. And as it stands, they will have gone seven seasons without making a pick in the first round; last time, they picked Goff. I get what they're doing, and why, but they've taken themselves out the running for good, young players. They have no replacement for 39 year old Whitworth, they're questionable at WR, their edge players are kind of meh, and they have no first rounders for the next two years.

 

Quote

Lets say Ballard used 2021, 2022 and 2023 first +some player to trade up for Lance. First 2 years are complete carte blanche. It's extremely rare to invest this many picks and give up on a QB before the 3d year. And if he shows pretty much ANYTHING ... any glimpse in year 2 he will get year 3 too(think Darnold). That year 3 is 2023. The last year you have pending draft obligations. The following draft you have all your picks intact. If he looks like he's not the guy, you are good to go onto the next QB. 

 

With who running the show? You think Les Snead survives if the Rams don't perform with Stafford? Joe Douglas probably doesn't survive to the 2024 draft if Zach Wilson isn't good. Ryan Pace doesn't make it that long if Fields isn't good.

 

And along the way, your roster is not being supplementing by first round talent.

 

If you take this big swing on a QB, and don't get it right, not only is the GM probably gone, you're also sacrificing the quality of your roster. For a fan, who cares? But for a GM, you better get it right.

 

Quote

I think people make mistake of thinking about the draft picks rather than the years... You are not really losing draft picks here with failed QBs. You are losing years. In essence a failed high draft pick of a QB likely loses you about 3 years... and the worst type of draft pick of a QB is the one that actually gives you some hopes and is mediocre enough to fool you to give him more than those 3 years(Darnold). IMO if in year 3 the QB you draft does not look like a franchise QB, you should move on. 

 

Yeah, I disagree. You're losing multiple draft picks, usually premium picks. And if you then double down by trading more picks for other players -- like the Rams have done -- you're also surrendering the cap space you want to have saved by having a good QB on a rookie deal.

 

I'm not intending to say this isn't a usable strategy. I'm just saying there are downsides to it, particularly if your QB turns out to not be good enough. Missing on a QB like the Rams "missed" on Goff is probably the best outcome. He had some pretty good years, then he was still good enough to help you get a potentially better QB. Most of the time, the miss results in decision makers getting fired, and a full scale tear down and rebuild.

[Superman]

43 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

But "good enough" isn't great though. And "great" seems to be the majority perception. And when anybody questions the overall team success and past performance to this point, Luck gets brought up. You can even see it in this thread.

 

And not to argue semantics, but if it's not an excuse, then it's an excuse-adjacent. Because those responses definitely serve to lessen the blame or justify why this team hasn't had more team success. Even in your post, you said it was "not Ballard's fault."

 

We all have our own definitions of team success I guess, but considering this is a competitive sport, there's a pretty clear goal for teams that are competitive.

 

Luck retiring two years ago has been acknowledged. But it should also be acknowledged that it was TWO full offseasons ago (which is a not short amount of time in the NFL). So we should really be past the point now of mentioning it after we see how Wentz plays. This has been my argument all along.

 

I think there's reason for optimism, as well big red flags. But this is the path they chose and I think we should judge that in time. I also think it's fair to judge the merits of acquiring Wentz vs. drafting a QB, which I have and will continue to do. Most people don't want to have that conversation.

 

But as I said to Jared, I don't think it's likely Wentz gets judged like that. And I already see people saying "what else could he have done."

 

27 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

Thinking it's the MOST logical way is not really the same as thinking it's the ONLY logical way. Though I admit there are probably people who see it that way. But you also have people who see it as illogical to even to do it. So that balance is needed on both sides.

 

But even with the risks, drafting a QB is the most tried-and-true method, especially for a team looking compete long-term (as has been the stated goal by Irsay). 

 

But it doesn't have to be a philosophy either. It can be a case-by-case basis. For example, I think preferring to draft a QB vs. trade for a guy like Wentz (with his red flags) is a pretty logical way to lean. But that's just me.

 

Either way, we get to see if trading for one works in this case.

 

There's a lot here, and I'm worn out.

 

"Excuse-adjacent" is about as semantically petty as is possible. Luck retiring changed the Colts trajectory, and unless you're ready to hold Ballard responsible for that, you have to acknowledge that expectations for "success" were adjusted when that happened.

 

Since then, we've had two offseasons. In one, they tried a band-aid (and had a measure of success; kind of interesting how sharply people turn their noses up at an 11 win season and a playoff appearance). The next, they made a bigger move for a guy with considerably more potential to be a long term solution. He has not played yet. (To the bolded, I'll repeat: He has not played yet. What's there to judge, as we sit here in August??) Rivers was decent. If Wentz is good, this conversation is dead, right? 

 

So how you judge Ballard (and Reich) depends on what kind of evaluation you're willing to make. Some people -- who I find to be intellectually dishonest, and assume they have an angle of some kind -- are win/loss people. "The Colts are 32-32 with Ballard, what's so great about him again?" Not worth the conversation.

 

If you consider the circumstances -- especially the fact that Ballard's first three years were as rocky as possible -- the conversation is far different. 

 

And I'm not someone just cheerleading for Ballard (or Reich). Success is relative. Their job is to produce a championship caliber team. That's not done yet, but I think they're making solid decision that give them a good shot at being successful, especially over a multiple year span. A .500-ish season in 2021 will probably not be considered any kind of success.

 

Also, you call drafting a QB the most tried and true method, and I think that's arguable. Drafted QBs bust, or fail to excel, quite often. There is no tried and true method of finding a QB, which is why teams go so hard after QBs. It's why the Bears have never had a 4,000 yard passer, why the Broncos had to luck into Peyton Manning, why the Dolphins have had 21(?) failures since Dan Marino, etc. The Colts are getting a small taste of what most of the rest of the NFL has been struggling with for the last 20 years. And you say 'it's been two full offseasons since Luck retired,' like that's an unreasonable amount of time to figure out the QB position.

[stitches]

31 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The Rams had Goff for five years, and he wasn't a problem for them until recently. If you get to a SB with your heavily leveraged QB, you're probably thinking things are okay, and you have a chance to reset at QB if you want, but probably not right away. If the Rams had felt Goff was a bust after Year 3, and traded a bunch of picks for another QB, they don't have Ramsey. They also needed Goff to have some kind of value -- not be a bust, in other words -- to make the Stafford deal work. And as it stands, they will have gone seven seasons without making a pick in the first round; last time, they picked Goff. I get what they're doing, and why, but they've taken themselves out the running for good, young players. They have no replacement for 39 year old Whitworth, they're questionable at WR, their edge players are kind of meh, and they have no first rounders for the next two years.

I'm still not sure Goff wasn't considered negative value in that trade. BTW both Goff and Jimmy G were QBs on a losing Superbowl team. And both their teams decided to move on from them. But both their defenses were exceptional. Goff was pretty good in that Superbowl year too, even if he wasn't great in the Superbowl itself. Overall, I'm not a fan of their team building strategy and I do think they are in a world of hurt going forward, but that's a different bigger conversation. Still they are probably going to be pretty good this year. 

 

Quote

 

With who running the show? You think Les Snead survives if the Rams don't perform with Stafford? Joe Douglas probably doesn't survive to the 2024 draft if Zach Wilson isn't good. Ryan Pace doesn't make it that long if Fields isn't good.

Oh you are probably right about that. It's rare that a new GM gets the chance to fail with a QB and then get another chance. But overall I don't care about that. Whoever is there to execute a good strategy I'm good with it. If it has to be 2 different GMs, so be it... if it has to be 1... I'm good with it too.  

 

Quote

And along the way, your roster is not being supplementing by first round talent.

First round talent at any position busts. If you are lucky you will hit on 2 of the 3. If you are not you might not hit on any of them, just like you might not hit on the QB. That's the risks of the draft. 

 

Quote

If you take this big swing on a QB, and don't get it right, not only is the GM probably gone, you're also sacrificing the quality of your roster. For a fan, who cares? But for a GM, you better get it right.

I do think there is some impact on the quality of the roster. I don't think it's as major as it might seem. LIke I said previously - on average you can expect to hit on about half your 1st and 2nd round picks(usually what you trade up with for a QB). In essence we are talking about 1 or 2 players out of 22 you field on the roster and none of them is a QB which is by far the most important. And if it takes the 3 years, by the 4th you will have to pay them, which essentially should be counted as a free agency move, rather than a draft success at that point. So yeah... you will get slight bump in quality of the roster, but you still will be missing the QB and that bump in quality is likely to make it harder to get the QB. 

 

Quote

 

Yeah, I disagree. You're losing multiple draft picks, usually premium picks. And if you then double down by trading more picks for other players -- like the Rams have done -- you're also surrendering the cap space you want to have saved by having a good QB on a rookie deal.

 

I'm not intending to say this isn't a usable strategy. I'm just saying there are downsides to it, particularly if your QB turns out to not be good enough. Missing on a QB like the Rams "missed" on Goff is probably the best outcome. He had some pretty good years, then he was still good enough to help you get a potentially better QB. Most of the time, the miss results in decision makers getting fired, and a full scale tear down and rebuild.

There are downsides to any strategy. I just like its overal simplicity and how it fits around timetables and modern day contract structures. I don't think the downside is much larger than just staying pat and I think the upside of actually hitting on a rookie scale QB is huge. BTW IMO one of the biggest downsides of that strategy is not having a 1st round pick in order to trade down and gather multiple valuable picks in the first couple of years of the new QB. 

 

P.S. I was just reading reports from Bears camp. Damn I'm so jealous they got Fields. The reports are stellar on him so far. 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, stitches said:

I'm still not sure Goff wasn't considered negative value in that trade. BTW both Goff and Jimmy G were QBs on a losing Superbowl team. And both their teams decided to move on from them. But both their defenses were exceptional. Goff was pretty good in that Superbowl year too, even if he wasn't great in the Superbowl itself. Overall, I'm not a fan of their team building strategy and I do think they are in a world of hurt going forward, but that's a different bigger conversation. Still they are probably going to be pretty good this year. 

 

I initially felt Goff was a negative, and the Rams had to give up another first to get the Lions to take him, but reports suggested the Lions wanted him, and now he's their starter. Also, Goff isn't going to carry you deep into the playoffs by himself, but he's not trash. He's not even a bust. He's just not *quite* good enough for a team that has to win to justify their history of aggressiveness in player acquisition. They have to capitalize on Aaron Donald, they have to get a QB who can produce with Robert Woods and Cooper Kupp, etc. Now. And I think they'll be good, also, but that's McVay, Stafford, and a potentially good defense. 

 

The Niners didn't give up nearly as much for JG, and even his salary looks paltry at this point.

 

Quote

First round talent at any position busts. If you are lucky you will hit on 2 of the 3. If you are not you might not hit on any of them, just like you might not hit on the QB. That's the risks of the draft. 

 

Definitely. But there's only one position for which you're saying a team should be willing to leverage all these premium picks for, and that's QB, the highest profile position in all of team sports. If you miss, heads roll, especially after a huge move up for him.

 

Not to mention you're sinking multiple premium picks into one player, not spreading the risk out over multiple players, that are developing on different timelines, with different contract eligibility. 

[NewColtsFan]

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

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.

Doug….  I like most of this post.  
 

But I’m not trying to say “who” actually fired Pagano.   I’m only trying to say that I think Pagano had no chance — none — to stay as the Colts HC after 2017.    That we were willing to give Pags a shot for all the good reasons you laid out in paragraph two and more.  And I think Pags and Ballard and Irsay all knew what was going to happen at the end of the season. 
 

Two of my favorite posters here disagree with me.   They believe Pagano had a legitimate chance to retain his job if he had had a great 2017.   I think the opposite.   I don’t know what other people think on this issue but I was shocked those two posters and I disagree.    That has been the focus of my discussion with them. 

[EastStreet]

6 hours ago, DougDew said:

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.

Every team deals with injuries, and a mix of talent. Those things do not explain the issues that create pause for me. Only time will tell if he himself improves. If we continue to throw it a ton vs horrible run Ds, as well as other game plan and play calling gaffes, then my opinion will not change. I'd hope those things are behind him.

[bleevit]

I just want to say congrats to Jim Irsay. It all starts from the top and Mr. Irsay has brought in a GM and HC that have seemingly put together a group of hard working fine young men. Their get a little better every day mantra is paying dividends. I love that Chris is a dogmatic realist. Is it better for the team is his only concept. I add that he and I seem to often have the same view of what is better for the team. Frank is a man of faith that has faith in his concepts as well. His playing and coaching careers have always been characterized by getting a little better every day. The big bonus is they're all fine members of the community. I'm proud they live in my community.

[bleevit]

On 8/11/2021 at 9:35 AM, lollygagger8 said:

Haven't busted this gem out in awhile, but......

 

You skin griz pilgrim?

[DougDew]

13 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Doug….  I like most of this post.  
 

But I’m not trying to say “who” actually fired Pagano.   I’m only trying to say that I think Pagano had no chance — none — to stay as the Colts HC after 2017.    That we were willing to give Pags a shot for all the good reasons you laid out in paragraph two and more.  And I think Pags and Ballard and Irsay all knew what was going to happen at the end of the season. 
 

Two of my favorite posters here disagree with me.   They believe Pagano had a legitimate chance to retain his job if he had had a great 2017.   I think the opposite.   I don’t know what other people think on this issue but I was shocked those two posters and I disagree.    That has been the focus of my discussion with them. 

I agree with you.  I think Ballard knew Pags would have a bad year and that would be support for starting a HC search.  I don't think Irsay had anything to do with Pags being here that extra year per se.  I don't think that he told Ballard to keep Pags around to evaluate him.

 

One thing as a side thought, I have never heard Ballard explain to us what type of defensive coach he was looking for or what type of defense he prefers.  Of course, if he comes in right away and tells us that he prefers a zone 43 when the HC is a known 34 coach, obviously the the HC's days are numbered.  But I still have never heard him say that the reason he hired Eber is because of defensive philosophy, that he likes 43 over 34. 

[shasta519]

29 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I agree with you.  I think Ballard knew Pags would have a bad year and that would be support for starting a HC search.  I don't think Irsay had anything to do with Pags being here that extra year per se.  I don't think that he told Ballard to keep Pags around to evaluate him.

 

One thing as a side thought, I have never heard Ballard explain to us what type of defensive coach he was looking for or what type of defense he prefers.  Of course, if he comes in right away and tells us that he prefers a zone 43 when the HC is a known 34 coach, obviously the the HC's days are numbered.  But I still have never heard him say that the reason he hired Eber is because of defensive philosophy, that he likes 43 over 34. 

 

He might not have known. Or was going to leave up to his HC. Ballard obviously had his experience in CHI with Lovie Smith's Cover 2 defenses, but when he was in KC, Sutton ran more of a 3-4 defense. 

 

His first draft was clearly geared toward a 3-4 defense though.

[shasta519]

14 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Doug….  I like most of this post.  
 

But I’m not trying to say “who” actually fired Pagano.   I’m only trying to say that I think Pagano had no chance — none — to stay as the Colts HC after 2017.    That we were willing to give Pags a shot for all the good reasons you laid out in paragraph two and more.  And I think Pags and Ballard and Irsay all knew what was going to happen at the end of the season. 
 

Two of my favorite posters here disagree with me.   They believe Pagano had a legitimate chance to retain his job if he had had a great 2017.   I think the opposite.   I don’t know what other people think on this issue but I was shocked those two posters and I disagree.    That has been the focus of my discussion with them. 

 

I don't think Pagano had a legitimate chance to retain his job either. Partly because the team was going in a new direction, but also because he didn't have a chance to have a great season either, given the state of the roster and the major questions around Luck. 

 

Let's also not forget that Irsay took a long time firing Grigson (all the way until Jan. 21) and Ballard wasn't even hired until Jan. 29. At that point, the HC candidate pool had been picked clean (outside of Shanahan, who was going to coach in the SB at the time but had a handshake deal with SF), which meant the asst. coach pool was also picked over as well.

 

So they essentially had to keep Pagano.