It's Time to Start Questioning Ballard

[Goatface Killah]

7 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

 

I mean...BoB made the playoffs 3/4 years in HOU and he's awful. Actually, he had like 7-8 starting QBs in that 4-year span, so it was even more "remarkable."

 

The flipside to the QB narrative is that he hasn't had to invest in the position, which has freed up so many resources to build up the rest of the team. And that narrative really starts to fall flat if Wentz doesn't get this team to the next level because that was the path they chose. But it's too early to judge that.

I dont live in a world where everyone who doesnt win a chip is "terrible". That word is overused by people who have no respect for how hard it is to win in the NFL. OBrien wasnt a good GM, but as a coach he had a lot of success and was far from horrible. And he never had 7-8 QBs in a 4 year span and made the playoffs 3 out of 4 years. Thats just completely made up. 

 

You can say what you want. But everyone knows the QB position in football is by far the most important of all and hardest to find in all of sports. It does matter. Losing Luck does matter. 

 

But humor me, who should the Colts hire that can overcome 4 QBs in 4 years and achieve what exactly? A championship? An AFCCG?Tell me. Any ideas? You have really high standards and Im not sure why. 

 

You make these statements like Chris Ballard saved money on the QB position so the rest of the team should be stacked.....but he really hasnt saved money on the QB position......he has filled it every single year with at the very least a moderately paid starter. Carson Wentz is making what Luck made. Rivers made about what Luck made. The year Luck retired we had more koney tied up in the QB position than anybody. And the team does have a lot of talent and is being hyped as a potential SB contender by a lot of people. 

 

Im tired of certain types of fans incessantly complaining and acting like the Colts have been a dumpster fire. They arent even close to the level this rhetoric suggests. Theyve been very steady while navigating some tough circumstances. Making the playoffs isnt easy. Winning division titles isn't easy. Overcoming losing a 1st overall draft pick at QB isnt easy. 

 

 

[EastStreet]

21 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

I dont live in a world where everyone who doesnt win a chip is "terrible". That word is overused by people who have no respect for how hard it is to win in the NFL. OBrien wasnt a good GM, but as a coach he had a lot of success and was far from horrible. And he never had 7-8 QBs in a 4 year span and made the playoffs 3 out of 4 years. Thats just completely made up. 

 

You can say what you want. But everyone knows the QB position in football is by far the most important of all and hardest to find in all of sports. It does matter. Losing Luck does matter. 

 

But humor me, who should the Colts hire that can overcome 4 QBs in 4 years and achieve what exactly? A championship? An AFCCG?Tell me. Any ideas? You have really high standards and Im not sure why. 

 

You make these statements like Chris Ballard saved money on the QB position so the rest of the team should be stacked.....but he really hasnt saved money on the QB position......he has filled it every single year with at the very least a moderately paid starter. Carson Wentz is making what Luck made. Rivers made about what Luck made. The year Luck retired we had more koney tied up in the QB position than anybody. And the team does have a lot of talent and is being hyped as a potential SB contender by a lot of people. 

 

Im tired of certain types of fans incessantly complaining and acting like the Colts have been a dumpster fire. They arent even close to the level this rhetoric suggests. Theyve been very steady while navigating some tough circumstances. Making the playoffs isnt easy. Winning division titles isn't easy. Overcoming losing a 1st overall draft pick at QB isnt easy. 

 

 

BoB did go through a ton of QBs in a short span 14ish to 17tish, and went to the playoffs at least twice. Went to second round one year I believe.

[Moosejawcolt]

8 hours ago, Four2itus said:

This is the most accurate comment in this thread. 

 

 Will this argument continue until DL is gone? If you think the Colts issues in their last game was because of what DL is paid, I can't help you. 

This thread shows it's already hitting the fan. It's week 1 for craps sake. 

No we did not lose because DL's play. I said it over and over. I would have traded him for a corner. The only problem is. What stupid team is going to trade a very good corner for a WLL and then give him a big contract?

[Goatface Killah]

14 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

BoB did go through a ton of QBs in a short span 14ish to 17tish, and went to the playoffs at least twice. Went to second round one year I believe.

Bill Obrien was the coach of the Texans for 6 years. He basically has had Hoyer, Osweiler and Watson as playoff starters. Hoyer started a playoff game and I think he replaced Tom Savage during that season. And he was atrocious as expected and got dusted in the playoff s that year..... But he was on a stacked division winning team with a top flight defense that preceeded Bill OBrien. Thats not really the same thing at all.

 

The only game they won in the playoffs they beat the Raiders who lost Carr late in the season and started Connor Cook. Whoopie.

 

Then they landed Watson several years into his tenure. 

 

The Colts wouldve beaten Connor Cook in a playoff game I promise you, but unfortunately they had to play Josh Allen instead.

[shasta519]

35 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

I dont live in a world where everyone who doesnt win a chip is "terrible". That word is overused by people who have no respect for how hard it is to win in the NFL. OBrien wasnt a good GM, but as a coach he had a lot of success and was far from horrible. And he never had 7-8 QBs in a 4 year span and made the playoffs 3 out of 4 years. Thats just completely made up. 

 

You can say what you want. But everyone knows the QB position in football is by far the most important of all and hardest to find in all of sports. It does matter. Losing Luck does matter. 

 

But humor me, who should the Colts hire that can overcome 4 QBs in 4 years and achieve what exactly? A championship? An AFCCG?Tell me. Any ideas? You have really high standards and Im not sure why. 

 

You make these statements like Chris Ballard saved money on the QB position so the rest of the team should be stacked.....but he really hasnt saved money on the QB position......he has filled it every single year with at the very least a moderately paid starter. Carson Wentz is making what Luck made. Rivers made about what Luck made. The year Luck retired we had more koney tied up in the QB position than anybody. And the team does have a lot of talent and is being hyped as a potential SB contender by a lot of people. 

 

Im tired of certain types of fans incessantly complaining and acting like the Colts have been a dumpster fire. They arent even close to the level this rhetoric suggests. Theyve been very steady while navigating some tough circumstances. Making the playoffs isnt easy. Winning division titles isn't easy. Overcoming losing a 1st overall draft pick at QB isnt easy. 

 

 

It was 7 starting QBs, not 8.

 

QBs who started games for HOU (2015-2018): Hoyer, Mallet, Yates, Weeden, Osweiler, Savage, Watson

 

HOU playoff teams (2015-18): 2015, 2016, 2018 

 

HC: Bill O’Brien 

 

GM: Rick Smith 

 

Rick Smith had to step away in Jan. 2018 to be with his wife, who had breast cancer (and would pass on Jan. 2019). He did not return after 2018, but that 2018 team was his (and BoB’s) team. 
 

Calling someone a liar (as you just did) without doing research makes you a clown.

[EastStreet]

3 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

Bill Obrien was the coach of the Texans for 6 years. He basically has had Hoyer, Osweiler and Watson as playoff starters. Hoyer started a playoff game and I think he replaced Tom Savage during that season. And he was atrocious as expected and got dusted in the playoff s that year..... But he was on a stacked division winning team with a top flight defense that preceeded Bill OBrien. Thats not really the same thing at all.

 

The only game they won in the playoffs they beat the Raiders who lost Carr late in the season and started Connor Cook. Whoopie.

 

Then they landed Watson several years into his tenure. 

 

The Colts wouldve beaten Connor Cook in a playoff game I promise you, but unfortunately they had to play Josh Allen instead.

In those years I mentioned, he multiple QBs, sometimes 3-4 in one year, starting multiple games.

Sure, he had some good pieces. Our D last year was supposed to be "elite"... lol

We've had good pieces too the last few years (better OL than Houston in those days) 

 

Main point, is that he had bad QBs, multiple QBs in-year, and still made playoff appearances. 

What we have done the last 4 years isn't really pat on the back type stuff. 

 

In short, the whole 4 QBs in 4 years narrative to excuse anything remotely critical is just tired. We had two great QBs (Luck and Rivers) in those two years. The only true "meh" QB was Brissett. Wentz has had very good years and only one down year with a team that probably had the most OL and WR injuries in the NFL last year...

 

 

[Goatface Killah]

9 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

It was 7 starting QBs, not 8.

 

QBs who started games for HOU (2015-2018): Hoyer, Mallet, Yates, Weeden, Osweiler, Savage, Watson

 

HOU playoff teams (2015-18): 2015, 2016, 2018 

 

HC: Bill O’Brien 

 

GM: Rick Smith 

 

Rick Smith had to step away in Jan. 2018 to be with his wife, who had breast cancer (and would pass on Jan. 2019). He did not return after 2018, but that 2018 team was his (and BoB’s) team. 
 

Calling someone a liar (as you just did) without doing research makes you a clown.

So every QB who starts a game in a season where they werent settled on a QB or had injuries is a "starting QB" 

 

RIGHT. Man please.

[shasta519]

36 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

BoB did go through a ton of QBs in a short span 14ish to 17tish, and went to the playoffs at least twice. Went to second round one year I believe.

Yep. And all of them except Weeden started at least two games during the 2015-18 span when they went to the playoffs 3/4 years.
 

And if you go back one more year to 2014, he had Fitz and Keenum start at least two games. They finished at 9-7…one game outside the WC.

 

That’s a ridiculous amount of QBs starting multiple games prior to Watson…with pretty solid success.
 

But now, BoB is a punchline and the GM of those HOU teams is a guy that I am sure most Colts fans have never heard of, but would just assume sucks because he’s a HOU exec. 

[jvan1973]

29 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

No we did not lose because DL's play. I said it over and over. I would have traded him for a corner. The only problem is. What stupid team is going to trade a very good corner for a WLL and then give him a big contract?

Are you still on this.   A guy that has been all pro his entire career?    You really need a new "hot" take.   They absolutely could have traded him,  they didn't even try because he is a cornerstone piece.

[EastStreet]

1 minute ago, GoatBeard said:

So every QB who starts a game in a season where they werent settled on a QB or had injuries is a "starting QB" 

 

RIGHT. Man please.

If your talking about shifting QB to QB, why isn't this relevant. Isn't having 1 Rivers, or 1 Luck, or 1 Wentz, or even 1 Brissett, better than 4 bad QBs in one year?

[Goatface Killah]

21 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

In those years I mentioned, he multiple QBs, sometimes 3-4 in one year, starting multiple games.

Sure, he had some good pieces. Our D last year was supposed to be "elite"... lol

We've had good pieces too the last few years (better OL than Houston in those days) 

 

Main point, is that he had bad QBs, multiple QBs in-year, and still made playoff appearances. 

What we have done the last 4 years isn't really pat on the back type stuff. 

 

In short, the whole 4 QBs in 4 years narrative to excuse anything remotely critical is just tired. We had two great QBs (Luck and Rivers) in those two years. The only true "meh" QB was Brissett. Wentz has had very good years and only one down year with a team that probably had the most OL and WR injuries in the NFL last year...

 

 

Did they lose a franchise QB in his prime, unexpectedly?

 

You left that part out. 

 

Our defense wasnt "supposed to be elite" last year......who said that? They were top 10 for 1 season. Just because you heard someone say that doesnt make it valid.

 

The Texans defense was elite for years before Obrien even got there. 

 

How is that even comparable?

[EastStreet]

1 minute ago, GoatBeard said:

Did they lose a franchise QB in his prime, unexpectedly?

 

You left that part out. 

 

Our division wasnt "supposed to be elite" last year......who said that? They were top 10 for 1 season. Just because you heard someone say that doesnt make it valid.

 

The Texans defense was elite for years before Obrien even got there. 

 

How is that even comparable?

Frankly it matters zero who you lost. We're talking about a simple thing here. 

Indy had more consistency through those 4 years than the Texans did.

Doesn't matter who was there the year before.

And 3 of the 4 guys we have/had are better than most all those guys.

[Goatface Killah]

11 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

If your talking about shifting QB to QB, why isn't this relevant. Isn't having 1 Rivers, or 1 Luck, or 1 Wentz, or even 1 Brissett, better than 4 bad QBs in one year?

Because the team was already built and had won division titles. They were just missing a QB.

 

And again, they didnt lose thier franchise QB 1 year into the rebuild. Because there was no rebuild.

 

This team is super young by comparison. They have had 2 offseasons since Luck retired and are barely into the season.

 

This is really a dumb comparison tbh.

 

 

7 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Frankly it matters zero who you lost. We're talking about a simple thing here. 

Indy had more consistency through those 4 years than the Texans did.

Doesn't matter who was there the year before.

And 3 of the 4 guys we have/had are better than most all those guys.

Says who? You?

 

It absolutely matters who you lost.

 

wth?

[Goatface Killah]

10 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

Yep. And all of them except Weeden started at least two games during the 2015-18 span when they went to the playoffs 3/4 years.
 

And if you go back one more year to 2014, he had Fitz and Keenum start at least two games. They finished at 9-7…one game outside the WC.

 

That’s a ridiculous amount of QBs starting multiple games prior to Watson…with pretty solid success.
 

But now, BoB is a punchline and the GM of those HOU teams is a guy that I am sure most Colts fans have never heard of, but would just assume sucks because he’s a HOU exec. 

Dude what are you talking about? Who thinks BOB is a "punchline" and who assumes a GM sucks just because hes a Houston executive? Like wth are you even talking about?

 

I dont.

 

Stop thinking everybody thinks the way you think. 

 

You would be a punchline but nobody even knows who tf you are. Nobody knows me either but I dont talk about people who achieve things like coaching in the NFL like they are a joke to me. 

 

 

[EastStreet]

6 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

Says who? You?

 

It absolutely matters who you lost.

 

wth?

 

OK.... 

If a coach could choose a situation

 

Pick 1

• Spend 4 years with 4 QBs (1 per year), 1 a likely HOFer, 1 who would have been short of injury, one who has played well 3 of 4 years, and one meh but solid guy who doesn't throw INTs.
• or
• Spend 4 years with 5+ QBs, none of whom are good, and you have to use at least 2 QBs each year....

 

You're very dishonest if you say any coach would choose the 2nd option, and very dishonest if you say the 1st option is more difficult.

 

Nobody is saying 4 QBs in 4 years is good. But it's a tired excuse and used far too much to excuse unrelated criticism.

[Goatface Killah]

7 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

OK.... 

If a coach could choose a situation

 

Pick 1

• Spend 4 years with 4 QBs (1 per year), 1 a likely HOFer, 1 who would have been short of injury, one who has played well 3 of 4 years, and one meh but solid guy who doesn't throw INTs.
• or
• Spend 4 years with 5+ QBs, none of whom are good, and you have to use at least 2 QBs each year....

 

You're very dishonest if you say any coach would choose the 2nd option, and very dishonest if you say the 1st option is more difficult.

 

Nobody is saying 4 QBs in 4 years is good. But it's a tired excuse and used far too much to excuse unrelated criticism.

You are dishonest for not mentioning the defense with JJ Watt, Whitney Mercilus and company along with Deandre Hopkins that come with it.

 

And yes I would choose the Texans team with the track record.

 

There is nothing really to excuse. So, its not an excuse, its a fact. And they have made the playoffs 2 out of 3 years. They are 28 and 21 over the last 3 years + 1 game. Thats actually good.

 

They have not been bad at all. So what are you complaining about?

 

Nobody has even bothered to answer the question about what is reasonable to expect with a team who has had 4 QBs in 3+ years? Because 28 and 21 seems on the high end to me.

 

It can actually be true that both the Texans AND the acolts have done a good job navigating trouble at the QB position. 

 

But that would require sound logic and I dont know if everybody is capable of that.

[shasta519]

9 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

So every QB who starts a game in a season where they werent settled on a QB or had injuries is a "starting QB" 

 

RIGHT. Man please.

Fine, go with 4 different starters (with most games) in 4 years. 
 

Still fits the “remarkable” criteria. 
 

But it doesn’t sound like you think it’s remarkable in their case. 

[Goatface Killah]

13 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

OK.... 

If a coach could choose a situation

 

Pick 1

• Spend 4 years with 4 QBs (1 per year), 1 a likely HOFer, 1 who would have been short of injury, one who has played well 3 of 4 years, and one meh but solid guy who doesn't throw INTs.
• or
• Spend 4 years with 5+ QBs, none of whom are good, and you have to use at least 2 QBs each year....

 

You're very dishonest if you say any coach would choose the 2nd option, and very dishonest if you say the 1st option is more difficult.

 

Nobody is saying 4 QBs in 4 years is good. But it's a tired excuse and used far too much to excuse unrelated criticism.

A hall of famer who was 38 years old at the time and playing his last season ever lol

 

Eaststreet you can ignore the truth if you want. But most NFL coaches would pick the more accomplished team. They would rather find 1 position than try to complete a total rebuild while simultaneously trying to solve the QB issue as well.

[Goatface Killah]

1 minute ago, shasta519 said:

Fine, go with 4 different starters (with most games) in 4 years. 
 

Still fits the “remarkable” criteria. 
 

But it doesn’t sound like you think it’s remarkable in their case. 

Yes I actually think they did a fine job given the circumstances.

 

You know, like a sane human being?

 

Why?

 

Because they did do a good job considering they didnt have stability at the most important position on the field. And so have the Colts.

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

You are dishonest for not mentioning the defense with JJ Watt, Whitney Mercilus and company along with Deandre Hopkins that come with it.

 

And yes I would choose the Texans team with the track record.

 

There is nothing really to excuse. So, its not an excuse, its a fact. And they have made the playoffs 2 out of 3 years. They are 28 and 21 over the last 3 years + 1 game. Thats actually good.

 

They have not been bad at all. So what are you complaining about?

 

Nobody has even bothered to answer the question about what is reasonable to expect with a team who has had 4 QBs in 3+ years? Because 28 and 21 seems on the high end to me.

 

It can actually be true that both the Texans AND the acolts have done a good job navigating trouble at the QB position. 

 

But that would require sound logic and I dont know if everybody is capable of that.

Again, the point of 4 in 4 is tried. 

D wise in terms of YPG, 15 and 16 they were good. 14, 17, 18 were mediocre.

We were top 10ish in 18 and 20

7 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

A hall of famer who was 38 years old at the time and playing his last season ever lol

 

Eaststreet you can ignore the truth if you want. But most NFL coaches would pick the more accomplished team. They would rather find 1 position than try to complete a total rebuild while simultaneously trying to solve the QB issue as well.

a 38 year old QB who was top 10ish in almost all major stat cats.

[Goatface Killah]

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

Again, the point of 4 in 4 is tried. 

D wise in terms of YPG, 15 and 16 they were good. 14, 17, 18 were mediocre.

We were top 10ish in 18 and 20

a 38 year old QB who was top 10ish in almost all major stat cats.

East you care way too much about Rankings and stats. The difference between placing 5th and placing 15th can be as little as 3 ppg.

 

When you factor in variables like SOS and injuries those variances dont mean a whole lot.

 

They had players on that defense. Period. They had a very good roster. Period.

 

The Colts are a young ascending team hoping to break thru this year. And they have a chance to do that.

 

Its 1 game.

[Goatface Killah]

4 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Again, the point of 4 in 4 is tried. 

D wise in terms of YPG, 15 and 16 they were good. 14, 17, 18 were mediocre.

We were top 10ish in 18 and 20

a 38 year old QB who was top 10ish in almost all major stat cats.

What did you expect the Colts to do over the last 2 years?

[shasta519]

38 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Frankly it matters zero who you lost. We're talking about a simple thing here. 

Indy had more consistency through those 4 years than the Texans did.

Doesn't matter who was there the year before.

And 3 of the 4 guys we have/had are better than most all those guys.

Right? Way better…outside of Watson, who got there in 2017.

 

And with Watson as a starter in 2017, they were 3-3. They were 3-4 after the first 7 games. Who knows how that season plays out if he doesn’t get hurt.

 

Not only that, Watt missed 11 games in 2017 as well. 
 

That was the one year out of those 4 they didn’t make it.
 

Watt also missed 13 games in 2016…and they even made the playoffs with those mediocre QBs. 
 

Could you imagine losing DeFo like that? 

[a06cc]

Only thing he was questioned on was not getting Woods replace. Next season he picked up DBuck. Also maybe not drafting AC’s replacement. Some of our starters didn’t see a single snap during preseason. That’s why we lost Sunday. We’ll improve as the season goes on. We do need to pickup a lot of wins before our bye week though. Isn’t until week 14. That’s why I preached a fast start this year. 

[EastStreet]

11 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

East you care way too much about Rankings and stats. The difference between placing 5th and placing 15th can be as little as 3 ppg.

 

When you factor in variables like SOS and injuries those variances dont mean a whole lot.

 

They had players on that defense. Period. They had a very good roster. Period.

 

The Colts are a young ascending team hoping to break thru this year. And they have a chance to do that.

 

Its 1 game.

 

10 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

What did you expect the Colts to do over the last 2 years?

 

I didn't use ppg. I used YPG. So not an easy skew.

Now your tossing in D, SOS, and all the "variances" lol.. Classic deflect.

 

We have players on D. 

 

I've never said panic after game one. I've clearly articulated in other threads what my thoughts are, and nothing was in panic fashion. A matter of fact, A lot of my pre-season premonitions are spot on so far.

 

What did I expect them to do? Exactly what they've done to be honest. But you said you'd choose door B, which is basically saying you don't agree with CB's choices. 

 

Again, my main point.... is, and will continue to be.... the 4 in 4 is a tired excuse for too much. 

[EastStreet]

16 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

Right? Way better…outside of Watson, who got there in 2017.

 

And with Watson as a starter in 2017, they were 3-3. They were 3-4 after the first 7 games. Who knows how that season plays out if he doesn’t get hurt.

 

Not only that, Watt missed 11 games in 2017 as well. 
 

That was the one year out of those 4 they didn’t make it.
 

Watt also missed 13 games in 2016…and they even made the playoffs with those mediocre QBs. 
 

Could you imagine losing DeFo like that? 

 

Yup. And I could go much much deeper if I felt this was an argument worth having. 

But it's not lol. 

I just don't want to hear the 4in4 excuse any more when it comes to Reich or Ballard. 

I feel like we should make a 4in4 trophy or award, have a board party to celebrate, and maybe we can be done with the narrative.

[Goatface Killah]

24 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

 

I didn't use ppg. I used YPG. So not an easy skew.

Now your tossing in D, SOS, and all the "variances" lol.. Classic deflect.

 

We have players on D. 

 

I've never said panic after game one. I've clearly articulated in other threads what my thoughts are, and nothing was in panic fashion. A matter of fact, A lot of my pre-season premonitions are spot on so far.

 

What did I expect them to do? Exactly what they've done to be honest. But you said you'd choose door B, which is basically saying you don't agree with CB's choices. 

 

Again, my main point.... is, and will continue to be.... the 4 in 4 is a tired excuse for too much. 

So they met youre expectations but youre arguing against someone who is suggesting they have done exactly what they should be doing lol 

 

Makes sense. 

 

Im not deflecting at all East, whether you used yards (a horrible metric for ranking defenses) or points (a much better metric which you intentially avoided).....the variances still affect that ranking equally.

 

I dont care about rankings East. At all. I care about wins and the playoffs. Thats it. How we get there doesnt really matter to me very much because there are many ways to skin that cat.

20 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

Yup. And I could go much much deeper if I felt this was an argument worth having. 

But it's not lol. 

I just don't want to hear the 4in4 excuse any more when it comes to Reich or Ballard. 

I feel like we should make a 4in4 trophy or award, have a board party to celebrate, and maybe we can be done with the narrative.

Again excuse for what? 

 

Doing exactly what you thought they should do? According to you?

 

Youve outsmarted yourself East. Your argument doesnt even make sense.

[NewColtsFan]

4 quarterbacks in 4 years is….   Tired?

 

Really?    Seriously?

 

Wowza.        
 

 

[Goatface Killah]

21 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

 

I didn't use ppg. I used YPG. So not an easy skew.

Now your tossing in D, SOS, and all the "variances" lol.. Classic deflect.

 

We have players on D. 

 

I've never said panic after game one. I've clearly articulated in other threads what my thoughts are, and nothing was in panic fashion. A matter of fact, A lot of my pre-season premonitions are spot on so far.

 

What did I expect them to do? Exactly what they've done to be honest. But you said you'd choose door B, which is basically saying you don't agree with CB's choices. 

 

Again, my main point.... is, and will continue to be.... the 4 in 4 is a tired excuse for too much. 

And woah woah woah

 

I said I dont agree with CBs choices?

 

Dude dont twist my words. Cmon. These two situations have nothing to do with each other at all. I just think that Houston roster was slightly better than the Colts roster atm.

 

I totally agree with CBs choices. I just understand things take time and I am not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater because we didnt hoist a lombardi last year. 

 

I believe in building teams up front first.

 

This is not a unique team building perspective, at all. Its a viewpoint that is widely held among some of the greatest football minds of all time. 

 

Are there things hes done I dont agree with? Absolutely. I thought he made a mistake not getting Kyle Fuller this offseason for example. 

 

What does any of this have to do with me being happy with where the Colts are at? Why is that an unreasonable take? Its not. They are actually a pretty good football team. They are young and ascending. And the biggest question mark looked pretty good on Sunday in a tough game against a really good team. 

 

You can be dissapointed in the game without trashing the team and everyone who works for it.

[EastStreet]

12 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

So they met youre expectations but youre arguing against someone who is suggestijg they have done exactly what they should be doing lol 

 

Makes sense. 

 

Im not deflecting at all East, whether you used yards (a horrible metric for ranking defenses) or points (a much better metric which you intentially avoided).....the variances still affect that ranking equally.

 

I dont care about rankings East. At all.i care about wins and the playoffs. How we get there doesnt matter to me.

Again excuse for what? 

 

Doing exactly what you thought they should do? According to you?

 

Youve outsmarted yourself East. Your argument doesnt even make sense.

Again, tired of the 4in4 narrative you used in the original post I responded to.

 

Folks act like it's some badge of honor, or get out of jail free card for any criticism, instead of directly having the factual conversation about the actual criticism. It's a tool for the weak.

 

Shasta gave an example of a tougher QB situation. You did everything you could to deflect and minimize, while ignoring the core aspect of the discussion. 

 

As far as stats, you've made points, and I've provided very basic/core stats to support my argument. Now you want to poo poo stats and talk unspecific "variance", which is an escape tool for someone who can't adequately support their opinion with anything but "well but variance" lol.. 

 

We don't need to continue as I have no interest in talking generalities and spin.

 

You win the internet today!

[Goatface Killah]

2 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Again, tired of the 4in4 narrative you used in the original post I responded to.

 

Folks act like it's some badge of honor, or get out of jail free card for any criticism, instead of directly having the factual conversation about the actual criticism. It's a tool for the weak.

 

Shasta gave an example of a tougher QB situation. You did everything you could to deflect and minimize, while ignoring the core aspect of the discussion. 

 

As far as stats, you've made points, and I've provided very basic/core stats to support my argument. Now you want to poo poo stats and talk unspecific "variance", which is an escape tool for someone who can't adequately support their opinion with anything but "well but variance" lol.. 

 

We don't need to continue as I have no interest in talking generalities and spin.

 

You win the internet today!

wth are you talking about? Im sorry if I hurt your feelings little buddy lol

 

I gave my opinion. The Colts have done pretty well despite having a less than ideal QB situation. I never made excuses and I dont need many stats to prove that Im 100% right. Just thier record. I gave it. You ignored it. And I could care less either way. 

 

The Texans did pretty good too. I never said they had it better/ worse, I said the team around the QB was better. And it absolutely was.

 

Bro your argument is one of the silliest most spin it to win it hail mary attempts ive ever read. Your complaining that the Colts didnt do better and youre tired of the excuse making while simultaneously claiming you didnt even expect more out of them yourself? 

 

Do you just like to argue and play devils advocate or some %? Yikes.

 

 

 

 

[EastStreet]

6 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

wth are you talking about? Im sorry if I hurt your feelings little buddy lol

 

I gave my opinion. The Colts have done pretty well despite having a less than ideal QB situation. I never made excuses and I dont need many stats to prove that Im 100% right. Just thier record. I gave it. You ignored it. And I could care less either way. 

 

The Texans did pretty good too. I never said they had it better/ worse, I said the team around the QB was better. And it absolutely was.

 

Bro your argument is one of the silliest most spin it to win it hail mary attempts ive ever read. Your complaining that the Colts didnt do better and youre tired of the excuse making while simultaneously claiming you didnt even expect more out of them yourself? 

 

Do you just like to argue and play devils advocate or some %? Yikes.

 

 

[Nickster]

On 9/14/2021 at 10:58 AM, DougDew said:

DL is a WILL in a 43 and you don't have to spend that much for a WILL.  I get it that the Bears back in the day did (forget his name), and TB had Brooks, but those teams were built around defense, so everybody was paid well.  

 

I'm not complaining about the signing.  Its hard to let him go.  But spending that much on a WILL sort of produces headwinds towards building (and keeping beyond 3 years) the other parts of the roster.  We'll see how it works out.

 

Blackmon seems to have the talent to develop.

 

PC is a slot and Pittman is an X.  They are fine for those roles.  If Straw can develop into more of a threat than a possession contested catch guy, I think we can get by with those three sprinkled in with Pascal.  But a real 3 down threat with Straw's build and hands would be ideal.  Typically only find those in the 1st or get lucky in the second.

 

And we need a TE.  Gransen seems like a physically limited role player, but we'll see.  A real threat at TE would make up for the lack of a true outside threat, IMO. 

 

And a Star would open things up for the others.

 

Overall I like our receiver group.  We are simply missing the 3 down threat/star...the hardest piece to find of course, lol.

Maybe as complimentary players MP and PC will be effective, but yeah, where are we going to get a star from?  

[poilucelt]

On 9/13/2021 at 8:40 PM, ar7 said:

 

I think the Luck retirement is important to bring up. Some will point out how you can't keep using it as an excuse but we can't overlook the impact this had.

 

Every decision Ballard made from the time he was hired up until Luck retired was made with the belief that Luck would be the QB for the long term. Had Luck never came back in 2018 and retired in 2017 then the Colts would have likely drafted Darnold or maybe Allen. Instead they trade back a few spots and take Nelson.

 

Luck not only retiring unexpectedly but retiring when he did really had the same impact on this franchise as the Bears missing with the Mitch Trubisky pick and chasing that mistake.

 

Hopefully Wentz solves this but even if so the Colts still had to use two early draft picks to solve it. Draft picks that could have been used on other needs.

 

I will also add that I agree with those who have pointed out in this thread that going from good to great is the tough part. The opinion on Ballard (or the team in general) is really going to be on the top 5-6 players to consistently shine and not whether or not the type of decisions that commonly get complained about. 

Allen was still available when Ballard traded back and drafted Nelson. And clearly at  least one team (Buffalo) thought Allen was worth moving up to #7 to pick.

 

Personally I'm not as critical as Polian about Ballard's pick of Nelson but I have to wonder if anyone offered CB anything for #6 because, as great as Q has been, I suspect he  might've still been available at #10, #12, or maybe even later. Perhaps Ballard just didn't get any offers for #6 that blew him away in terms of a potential trade.

[tikyle]

I honestly think Ballard would be looking closer to a genius if Malik Hooker panned out.  You add him at his best to this defense and it's Top 10 every season and fills so many holes in the secondary.  As for the offense, he's been mediocre to bad outside of interior lineman and RB.

 

Looking at the schedule the Colts can either go like 0-6 or somewhere close to .500 their first 6 games.  That will ultimately determine how the season pans out.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

2 hours ago, poilucelt said:

Allen was still available when Ballard traded back and drafted Nelson. And clearly at  least one team (Buffalo) thought Allen was worth moving up to #7 to pick.

 

Personally I'm not as critical as Polian about Ballard's pick of Nelson but I have to wonder if anyone offered CB anything for #6 because, as great as Q has been, I suspect he  might've still been available at #10, #12, or maybe even later. Perhaps Ballard just didn't get any offers for #6 that blew him away in terms of a potential trade.

We had Luck.

[GoColts8818]

4 hours ago, poilucelt said:

Allen was still available when Ballard traded back and drafted Nelson. And clearly at  least one team (Buffalo) thought Allen was worth moving up to #7 to pick.

 

Personally I'm not as critical as Polian about Ballard's pick of Nelson but I have to wonder if anyone offered CB anything for #6 because, as great as Q has been, I suspect he  might've still been available at #10, #12, or maybe even later. Perhaps Ballard just didn't get any offers for #6 that blew him away in terms of a potential trade.

He would have had to know Luck was going to retire to take Allen.  No one saw that coming so holding that against him is unfair.  Also they traded back to six.  Odds are they did that with Big Q or Chubb in mind knowing one of the two would fall to them at six with their two biggest needs being o-line and end at the time.  QB being a need wasn’t on anyone’s radar then.

[cdgacoltsfan]

4 hours ago, poilucelt said:

Allen was still available when Ballard traded back and drafted Nelson. And clearly at  least one team (Buffalo) thought Allen was worth moving up to #7 to pick.

 

Personally I'm not as critical as Polian about Ballard's pick of Nelson but I have to wonder if anyone offered CB anything for #6 because, as great as Q has been, I suspect he  might've still been available at #10, #12, or maybe even later. Perhaps Ballard just didn't get any offers for #6 that blew him away in terms of a potential trade.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I think it’s time to also start questioning eberflus. We need a DC that dictates not one that sits back and Reacts if that makes sense.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I know Ballard can’t fix everything at once. But something  I have noticed is he will strengthen a position group and at the same time weakens another. That makes it seem like we are always spinning our wheels and never get ahead. At some point this team has to take the next step. We need a better secondary and we need a play making TE.  What will happen is he will fix one while what seems is not noticing he is weakening another.