Colts Front Office Grades by Pro Football Network

[GoColts8818]

2 hours ago, Four2itus said:

I believe rankings should be by the results of last season, not the upcoming season. That is not a ranking, it's a wild guess. 

 

And the results should include considerations of lost impact players, coaching/front office/scheme changes, divisional strength, and rotating division matchups/bye week/travel disadvantages. 

Pretty much my point from before.  Thanks for saying it better than me.

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, Solid84 said:

And who's that on?

 

I know Luck retiring was a major blow to the Colts, but Ballard has had years to find a stable replacement. Not getting that done is squarely on him. This is a major reason why he has no place in the top 10.

Are you serious?    Luck retires in August of 2019 and you think this somehow reflects badly on Ballard?    That’s insane. 
 

Franchises can go much MUCH longer trying to find their next franchise quarterback before they finally do.    Comparatively speaking,  the clock on the Colts search for a franchise quarterback has barely started.  
 

It’s only the hardest position in all of sports to play. The hardest position in sports to accurately judge.   It’s the reason that most first round quarterbacks aren’t successful enough.  
 

We have a roster built to win now.   We need a quarterback ready to win now.  

[EastStreet]

22 hours ago, Myles said:

Yeah, but the Brown's have been the front office for a long time and Cincy has stunk it up most of those years.   They finally hit on a QB because they had a high draft choice because the sucked so much.  

IIRC, Cinci did a masterful job turning their D around in short order via FA. 

Actually, I think both Cinci and Cleveland took a very nice step last season on D. 

[Solid84]

11 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Are you serious?    Luck retires in August of 2019 and you think this somehow reflects badly on Ballard?    That’s insane. 
 

Franchises can go much MUCH longer trying to find their next franchise quarterback before they finally do.    Comparatively speaking,  the clock on the Colts search for a franchise quarterback has barely started.  
 

It’s only the hardest position in all of sports to play. The hardest position in sports to accurately judge.   It’s the reason that most first round quarterbacks aren’t successful enough.  
 

We have a roster built to win now.   We need a quarterback ready to win now.  

I didn’t say that, try again. 
 

I said Luck retiring, of course, set back the Colts organisation, but Ballard’s had years now to find a stable QB solution - either a stable place-holder or the actual QB of the future. Instead we’ve gotten a QB carousel.
 

Earlier in this thread you pointed to QB stability as one of the reasons we haven’t won one the weakest divisions in football and, whether you want to admit it or not, that’s on Ballard. 
 

Major QB talents have been traded or been FAs in recent years. Good or better QB talent has been drafted in recent years. Ballard could’ve made a move to, at least, give us a few years of stability. He didn’t. That’s on him. 

 

 

[Myles]

9 hours ago, EastStreet said:

IIRC, Cinci did a masterful job turning their D around in short order via FA. 

Actually, I think both Cinci and Cleveland took a very nice step last season on D. 

I agree that both teams have done a good job last year.   The same front office in Cincy has had them being a crappy team for many years.   I'm not going to forget that and suddenly say they are great for one 10-7 season.  I still say it was by sucking so bad that they were able to get a good QB.  They won 4 games with that QB injured the year before.     

[DougDew]

16 hours ago, Myles said:

I wouldn't ever consider going 25-53-2 for 5 years before a winning record (10-7) is good use of 5 years.  Sure, they took advantage of their high draft positions, but they sucked for 5 years to do it.  

Delayed gratification.  But they got to the SB by doing it.  When they had the chance, they took a QB and an elite WR.  We took a G.  That right there speaks better of the CIN FO than the Colts'.

[Myles]

53 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Delayed gratification.  But they got to the SB by doing it.  When they had the chance, they took a QB and an elite WR.  We took a G.  That right there speaks better of the CIN FO than the Colts'.

Not really.   Cincy has sucked almost every year I can remember.  One 10-7 season doesn't make me forget that.   Let's see if they can sustain it.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

13 minutes ago, Myles said:

Not really.   Cincy has sucked almost every year I can remember.  One 10-7 season doesn't make me forget that.   Let's see if they can sustain it.  

I like Joe Burrow but I would bet heavy money against them making the SB again. Most teams that lose the SB rarely make it back the next year. They were healthy and got hot at the right time. They should've never beat KC, KC just choked. Buffalo is better as well. I think we are on par with Cincy as is the whole AFC West  . I just had an issue with the Browns being ahead of us, Browns are a mess in reality with the Watson situation. They are screwed in 2022 and as a franchise over the last decade, they have been a joke.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Delayed gratification.  But they got to the SB by doing it.  When they had the chance, they took a QB and an elite WR.  We took a G.  That right there speaks better of the CIN FO than the Colts'.

They got Burrow because they had the #1 pick, it doesn't take a genius to take Joe Burrow #1. Had they not had that pick they would be a dumpster fire. Like when we got Luck, people want to bow down to Grigson for drafting Luck which is laughable. People that are even novice fans would've took Luck #1. Luck didn't get to the SB mainly because of the Patriots when he was cooking in his first 3 years. With Luck though, we were going to win 10 or 11 games when he was healthy, that was a given and proven.  

 

"We took a G". Yeah because Luck needed protection and was getting killed. That was a great draft pick and Nelson is a 3-time All-Pro.

[DougDew]

30 minutes ago, Myles said:

Not really.   Cincy has sucked almost every year I can remember.  One 10-7 season doesn't make me forget that.   Let's see if they can sustain it.  

You keep referring to specific records during those 5 years.  I'm looking at decisions made during the past five years leading to player development.  We've been treading water for 4 years primarily because our FO can't address the teams main needs sufficiently, receivers and pass rushers.  Cincy surpassed us in terms of performance and addressed their main weakness, interior oline, in this one offseason.  We'll see how that works out.  

[Myles]

14 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

They got Burrow because they had the #1 pick, it doesn't take a genius to take Joe Burrow #1. Had they not had that pick they would be a dumpster fire. Like when we got Luck, people want to bow down to Grigson for drafting Luck which is laughable. People that are even novice fans would've took Luck #1. Luck didn't get to the SB mainly because of the Patriots when he was cooking in his first 3 years. With Luck though, we were going to win 10 or 11 games when he was healthy, that was a given and proven.  

 

"We took a G". Yeah because Luck needed protection and was getting killed. That was a great draft pick and Nelson is a 3-time All-Pro.

I totally agree.   You can't really praise a front office too much for picking the QB everyone else wants with the first pick.   There were 2 teams willing to give the Colts their entire draft plus some for the Luck pick.  

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

They got Burrow because they had the #1 pick, it doesn't take a genius to take Joe Burrow #1. Had they not had that pick they would be a dumpster fire. Like when we got Luck, people want to bow down to Grigson for drafting Luck which is laughable. People that are even novice fans would've took Luck #1. Luck didn't get to the SB mainly because of the Patriots when he was cooking in his first 3 years. With Luck though, we were going to win 10 or 11 games when he was healthy, that was a given and proven.  

 

"We took a G". Yeah because Luck needed protection and was getting killed. That was a great draft pick and Nelson is a 3-time All-Pro.

Yes.  CIN has probably gotten the most they could have out of their high draft picks, including those in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.  That's a sign of a good FO.

[Myles]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

You keep referring to specific records during those 5 years.  I'm looking at decisions made during the past five years leading to player development.  We've been treading water for 4 years primarily because our FO can't address the teams main needs sufficiently, receivers and pass rushers.  Cincy surpassed us in terms of performance and addressed their main weakness, interior oline, in this one offseason.  We'll see how that works out.  

It was the same front office who has put out a crappy team for many years.  Their crappy team gave them the 1st pick in the draft.  Now they have a 10 win season and they are a top 10 front office?   I don't think so.  Without Burrow, they won 4 games.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Yes.  CIN has gotten the most out of their high draft picks.  That's a sign of a good FO.

So have we, Nelson and Leonard both have been all-pro's, so was Taylor last year. Did you really think Joe Burrow wouldn't be great?? As a #1 pick, he has been the best pick since Luck was taken #1 in 2012.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Myles said:

It was the same front office who has put out a crappy team for many years.  Their crappy team gave them the 1st pick in the draft.  Now they have a 10 win season and they are a top 10 front office?   I don't think so.  Without Burrow, they won 4 games.  

With JB (not Luck, Rivers, or Wentz) we won 6.  Our FO was able to rent competent QBs for a year.  That's kind of a no brainer too.

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

So have we, Nelson and Leonard both have been all-pro's, so was Taylor last year. Did you really think Joe Burrow wouldn't be great?? As a #1 pick, he has been the best pick since Luck was taken #1 in 2012.

I think CIN has scored on their WR picks, their pass rushers, and their secondary....in addition to Joe Mixon.  We scored on our G, our WILL, our RT, and our RB.  Right there should tell you who has done better with what they had to work with.

 

Maybe this draft for us will come together with Pittman and Paye and it will take us to the next level.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

I think CIN has scored on their WR picks, their pass rushers, and their secondary....in addition to Joe Mixon.  We scored on our G and our WILL and our RB.  Right there should tell you who has done better with what they had to work with.

They also have an O.Line that got Joe Burrow put out his rookie season and nearly got him killed last year. He was sacked 9 times against the Titans alone, they won that game because Tannehill was being Tannehill . Burrow won't last if they don't beef up that Line. The O.line is very important, Luck is a great example of that. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Chase was a great pick, I will give  you that @DougDew.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

They also have an O.Line that got Joe Burrow put out his rookie season and nearly got him killed last year. He was sacked 9 times against the Titans alone, they won that game because Tannehill was being Tannehill . Burrow won't last if they don't beef up that Line. The O.line is very important, Luck is a great example of that. 

That's what I said to Myles.  The CIN FO addressed their interior oline this offseason.  They got what they needed in just one offseason.  We'll see if it works, but the Olinemen they signed are thought to be very competent.

 

Besides Chase, I think their #2 and #3 WRs are pretty good, and they had two good TEs, IIRC.

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

That's what I said to Myles.  The CIN FO addressed their interior oline this offseason.  They got what they needed in just one offseason.  We'll see if it works, but the Olinemen they signed are thought to be very competent.

 

Besides Chase, I think their #2 and #3 WRs are pretty good, and they had two good TEs, IIRC.

I think their FO has done a good job the last couple of years but Burrow makes any team better. They got lucky he was there at #1 like we were with Peyton and Luck.

[FuedinHatfield]

The Browns are and will continue to be a train wreck. They literally gave the farm for a guy that may after all is said and done miss two straight years. The fact they're rated above us makes the credibility of the article questionable.

 

The Bengals and the Chargers have two of the best young QBs out there and were pretty much no brain power needed picks. 

 

The Bengals I'll argue are set to be highly competitive for years with Burrow, Chase and Mixon who were all drafted. The SB appearance pushing them past a lot of teams. We haven't had one in a decade plus. 

 

Should we be in the top ten? I don't think so imo. We gave up a first round pick for Carson Wentz who has had basically one dynamite year with a loaded team and a nothing but medicority since then. A guy who cannot read coverages. His accuracy is streaky at best, misses wide open underneath routes and easy first downs to make questionable throws to Pittman in double coverage. If not for Jonathan Taylor being a all world back we would have been stinking it up all year and we end up giving up a higher draft pick for his garbage. That is a ton of egg on their face and by itself knocks us out of the top ten.

 

The front office and coaching staff scapegoat Wentz and ship for a third which turn into Matty Ice. Thats a heck of a return and helps Ballards credibility. The end of the season and Wentz thing should have went on Reich as well. I think he came out a little too clean on it for my taste. I honestly think Ballard should have swung his weight around and forced Reich to relinquish playcalling duties on offense this coming season and focus on having the team prepared. Just my two cents.

 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, FuedinHatfield said:

The Browns are and will continue to be a train wreck. They literally gave the farm for a guy that may after all is said and done miss two straight years. The fact they're rated above us makes the credibility of the article questionable.

 

The Bengals and the Chargers have two of the best young QBs out there and were pretty much no brain power needed picks. 

 

The Bengals I'll argue are set to be highly competitive for years with Burrow, Chase and Mixon who were all drafted. The SB appearance pushing them past a lot of teams. We haven't had one in a decade plus. 

 

Should we be in the top ten? I don't think so imo. We gave up a first round pick for Carson Wentz who has had basically one dynamite year with a loaded team and a nothing but medicority since then. A guy who cannot read coverages. His accuracy is streaky at best, misses wide open underneath routes and easy first downs to make questionable throws to Pittman in double coverage. If not for Jonathan Taylor being a all world back we would have been stinking it up all year and we end up giving up a higher draft pick for his garbage. That is a ton of egg on their face and by itself knocks us out of the top ten.

 

The front office and coaching staff scapegoat Wentz and ship for a third which turn into Matty Ice. Thats a heck of a return and helps Ballards credibility. The end of the season and Wentz thing should have went on Reich as well. I think he came out a little too clean on it for my taste. I honestly think Ballard should have swung his weight around and forced Reich to relinquish playcalling duties on offense this coming season and focus on having the team prepared. Just my two cents.

 

 

 

I actually have us at #10 ahead of the Browns on that list. Browns being ahead of us is wrong no matter how anyone slices it. We redeemed ourselves with the Wentz blunder by getting that extra 3rd and landing Ryan. I really don't have a problem with Cincy being ahead of us but I have been going back and forth with Doug because Cincy would not be a playoff team without Burrow. 

[shasta519]

17 minutes ago, DougDew said:

That's what I said to Myles.  The CIN FO addressed their interior oline this offseason.  They got what they needed in just one offseason.  We'll see if it works, but the Olinemen they signed are thought to be very competent.

 

Besides Chase, I think their #2 and #3 WRs are pretty good, and they had two good TEs, IIRC.

 

Cost them $23M in AAV to (hopefully) address C, RG and RT through Burrow's rookie deal. All signed in FA because Burrow's deal is cheap. Not that dissimilar to the approach a certain Colts GM took. Hopefully CIN has better luck with injuries (for Burrow's sake).  

[Myles]

47 minutes ago, DougDew said:

With JB (not Luck, Rivers, or Wentz) we won 6.  Our FO was able to rent competent QBs for a year.  That's kind of a no brainer too.

Actually we won 7 games that year, but I understand what you are saying.   

I know this is all personal opinion but I don't wipe away a front offices 5 horrible seasons with 1 good season.   If the Jags had the same front office that went to the AFC Championship in 2017, I would not put them in the top ten because their record previously was:

2016 - 3-13

2015 - 5-11

2014 - 3-13

2013 - 4-12

2012 - 2-14

 

Similar to the Bengals the 5 years prior to last year.  If it takes a front office 6 years to put forth an above .500 record, they should not be praised unless they can sustain it.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

16 minutes ago, Myles said:

Actually we won 7 games that year, but I understand what you are saying.   

I know this is all personal opinion but I don't wipe away a front offices 5 horrible seasons with 1 good season.   If the Jags had the same front office that went to the AFC Championship in 2017, I would not put them in the top ten because their record previously was:

2016 - 3-13

2015 - 5-11

2014 - 3-13

2013 - 4-12

2012 - 2-14

 

Similar to the Bengals the 5 years prior to last year.  If it takes a front office 6 years to put forth an above .500 record, they should not be praised unless they can sustain it.

 

I agree. Imagine after 2017 how the Jags FO was rated, then they went back to sucking. I really don't have a problem with Cincy being rated higher than us as I posted above because I think Burrow is the real deal. The Chase pick was great. Having said that they are good because they were lucky Burrow was there at #1. Browns being rated higher on that list though has me doing this 

[NewColtsFan]

13 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I didn’t say that, try again. 
 

I said Luck retiring, of course, set back the Colts organisation, but Ballard’s had years now to find a stable QB solution - either a stable place-holder or the actual QB of the future. Instead we’ve gotten a QB carousel.
 

Earlier in this thread you pointed to QB stability as one of the reasons we haven’t won one the weakest divisions in football and, whether you want to admit it or not, that’s on Ballard. 
 

Major QB talents have been traded or been FAs in recent years. Good or better QB talent has been drafted in recent years. Ballard could’ve made a move to, at least, give us a few years of stability. He didn’t. That’s on him. 

 

 

Unlike most posters here,  I don’t always look for someone to blame.   The situation is what it is,   Luck retiring is not on Ballard.   
 

And we’re only 3 years in to what you call a “carousel”.    Rivers, Wentz, Ryan.    Rivers worked out.   Most here seem to think Ryan will work out in the short term.   Only Wentz didn’t work out.   And by all accounts, Ballard has handled that expertly.  
 

In the grand scheme of things,  three years is nothing.   Teams often go a decade or longer without finding their quarterback.   Look at all the teams that have drafted a quarterback and it hasn’t worked out.   Look at all the teams that made an expensive trade to move up and the QB is a bust.   Making a big move is risky at best.  
 

As for what you did or didn’t say….   You literally blamed Ballard for not solving the long-term QB in a small number of years.   You literally said he didn’t deserve to have his front office ranked in the top-10.   Those were your views.   I’m not putting words in your mouth.   I don’t understand your views but respect that we see the same thing differently.   I’m just getting this on the record. 
 

 

11 hours ago, DougDew said:

 

[NewColtsFan]

11 hours ago, DougDew said:

Delayed gratification.  But they got to the SB by doing it.  When they had the chance, they took a QB and an elite WR.  We took a G.  That right there speaks better of the CIN FO than the Colts'.

We took a guard because we didn’t need a quarterback.   We had some guy named Luck.   And we didn’t take an elite WR because there wasn’t one worthy of a top-10 pick that year.  Your post implies we had the option to take either one, but elected not to.   
 

And our consolation prize is only a guy who had the best first three years any guard in NFL history with the possible exception of John Hannah.   You continue to complain over a future Hall of Fame player despite his first four years proving you wrong. 

[EastStreet]

19 hours ago, Myles said:

I agree that both teams have done a good job last year.   The same front office in Cincy has had them being a crappy team for many years.   I'm not going to forget that and suddenly say they are great for one 10-7 season.  I still say it was by sucking so bad that they were able to get a good QB.  They won 4 games with that QB injured the year before.     

 

Most teams get their franchise QB by stinking bad.

That's how we got Manning, and that's how we got Luck.

For me, to some degree, it's what you do once you get your QB. 

[Solid84]

7 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Unlike most posters here,  I don’t always look for someone to blame.   The situation is what it is,   Luck retiring is not on Ballard.   
 

And we’re only 3 years in to what you call a “carousel”.    Rivers, Wentz, Ryan.    Rivers worked out.   Most here seem to think Ryan will work out in the short term.   Only Wentz didn’t work out.   And by all accounts, Ballard has handled that expertly.  
 

In the grand scheme of things,  three years is nothing.   Teams often go a decade or longer without finding their quarterback.   Look at all the teams that have drafted a quarterback and it hasn’t worked out.   Look at all the teams that made an expensive trade to move up and the QB is a bust.   Making a big move is risky at best.  
 

As for what you did or didn’t say….   You literally blamed Ballard for not solving the long-term QB in a small number of years.   You literally said he didn’t deserve to have his front office ranked in the top-10.   Those were your views.   I’m not putting words in your mouth.   I don’t understand your views but respect that we see the same thing differently.   I’m just getting this on the record. 
 

 

 

I posted my opinion, while trying to be objective about why I think Ballard & co is not a top 10 FO. It's not about placing 'blame'. And no, Luck retiring (and the years of Brissett) isn't on Ballard. But not correctly evaluating the players (Rivers and Wentz) we got instead is. I disagree Rivers worked out, because we didn't need a QB for a year. I very much liked what he did here, but we needed stability after the Luck and Brissett years, not a half-hearted attempt at a SB.

 

To the bolded, yes I did (and I was sure I didn't, though, lol), and I would like to retract that. I wanted and want (hope we got in Ryan) a stable QB until we find the QB. The players do too (If Darius speaks for the entire locker room, though I suspect they all must be frustrated with the situation).

 

Ballard's inability to find that stability while having us as a team fighting for a 3rd wildcard in one of the worst divisions in football can't give him a top 10 FO position in my opinion.

[Myles]

3 hours ago, EastStreet said:

 

Most teams get their franchise QB by stinking bad.

That's how we got Manning, and that's how we got Luck.

For me, to some degree, it's what you do once you get your QB. 

Yes, but If you have been bad for many years before, it should not be forgotten.   If Cincy had been at or above .500 for a couple years and then got the top pick it would be different.    But they have been bad for many years and now people are praising the front office for a 10-7 record.   To me it is more about sustainability.  

[EastStreet]

2 hours ago, Myles said:

Yes, but If you have been bad for many years before, it should not be forgotten.   If Cincy had been at or above .500 for a couple years and then got the top pick it would be different.    But they have been bad for many years and now people are praising the front office for a 10-7 record.   To me it is more about sustainability.  

The grades aren't about long term history. They're about current situation and to an extent, recent history. And currently, for instance Cinci, has great cap health, a legit QB, legit O skill players via the draft,  re-made their D in short order via FA, and went deep in the playoffs. On paper, that's a great turnaround on both sides of the ball in the last few years. In today's NFL, SB windows are getting smaller for teams lol. If you want to give them the 2010's suck award, fine lol. But 2020s look like they'll be good for Cinci. 

[Myles]

2 hours ago, EastStreet said:

The grades aren't about long term history. They're about current situation and to an extent, recent history. And currently, for instance Cinci, has great cap health, a legit QB, legit O skill players via the draft,  re-made their D in short order via FA, and went deep in the playoffs. On paper, that's a great turnaround on both sides of the ball in the last few years. In today's NFL, SB windows are getting smaller for teams lol. If you want to give them the 2010's suck award, fine lol. But 2020s look like they'll be good for Cinci. 

2010 - Suck Award

2016 - Suck Award

2017 - Suck Award

2018 - Suck Award

2019 - Suck Award

2020 - Suck Award

 

Same front office.   I need to see them have a good record again before I put them in the top ten.

[DougDew]

On 6/28/2022 at 10:32 AM, shasta519 said:

 

Cost them $23M in AAV to (hopefully) address C, RG and RT through Burrow's rookie deal. All signed in FA because Burrow's deal is cheap. Not that dissimilar to the approach a certain Colts GM took. Hopefully CIN has better luck with injuries (for Burrow's sake).  

Yep, that's how teams win.  But it is dissimilar to the approach the Colts took.  I can't emphasize it enough.

 

They get IMPACTFUL players on cheap rookie deals.  Pro Bowl performances at positions that matter.  Our pro bowl performers on rookie deals were at G (Nelson) and WILL (Leonard).  There's was at QB (Burrow) and WR (Chase).

 

CIN fixed their interior oline for their franchise QB via FA, where they can be found.

 

And now our PB players are off of their rookie deals and are about to get paid.  A window missed, unless we suck and have an opportunity to draft high again.  Although JT is working out well in being both impactful and cheap.

 

And we got lucky with Ryan becoming available...that's about as lucky as Burrow being there.  Where would you rank the FO if Ryan wasn't here?  Hopefully Ryan can take us far.

[2006Coltsbestever]

16 minutes ago, Myles said:

2010 - Suck Award

2016 - Suck Award

2017 - Suck Award

2018 - Suck Award

2019 - Suck Award

2020 - Suck Award

 

Same front office.   I need to see them have a good record again before I put them in the top ten.

They may not even make the playoffs if the Ravens win that division. There have been many teams that get hot for 1 year than they fall off again. They may get another Suck Award in 2022  

[DougDew]

15 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

We took a guard because we didn’t need a quarterback.   We had some guy named Luck.   And we didn’t take an elite WR because there wasn’t one worthy of a top-10 pick that year.  Your post implies we had the option to take either one, but elected not to.   
 

And our consolation prize is only a guy who had the best first three years any guard in NFL history with the possible exception of John Hannah.   You continue to complain over a future Hall of Fame player despite his first four years proving you wrong. 

Ballard has never expressed it that way, that we settled for a G.  He seems to say that having the best all time G matters, even thinking its dumb to entertain the idea of moving him to LT.  

 

It also goes back to taking a one-dimensional FS with pick 15.

 

But circumstances dictate this too, I'll agree.  I'm not saying that Ballard is a chump.  I just think that CIN has capitalized on their draft capital better than the Colts have over the past few years.  And here they are able to "fix" their interior oline for their franchise QB in one FA offseason.  Kudos to them.

[shasta519]

7 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I posted my opinion, while trying to be objective about why I think Ballard & co is not a top 10 FO. It's not about placing 'blame'. And no, Luck retiring (and the years of Brissett) isn't on Ballard. But not correctly evaluating the players (Rivers and Wentz) we got instead is. I disagree Rivers worked out, because we didn't need a QB for a year. I very much liked what he did here, but we needed stability after the Luck and Brissett years, not a half-hearted attempt at a SB.

 

To the bolded, yes I did (and I was sure I didn't, though, lol), and I would like to retract that. I wanted and want (hope we got in Ryan) a stable QB until we find the QB. The players do too (If Darius speaks for the entire locker room, though I suspect they all must be frustrated with the situation).

 

Ballard's inability to find that stability while having us as a team fighting for a 3rd wildcard in one of the worst divisions in football can't give him a top 10 FO position in my opinion.

 

Whiffing on Wentz was technically only cost one season, but it also meant going down a different path that could prolong the QB search even more. And it has.

 

And after the failed Wentz experiment, they went back to the vet QB stopgap route, except they committed to two full years. So now, they might not even address it until the 5th offseason after Luck retired.

 

So for me, I think what lends to that inability to find stability is that they haven't seemed too concerned with drafting and developing a QB. Which is weird because this team's MO is to build through the draft and keep your own. But because they haven't looked to the draft, there still isn't any type of long-term plan or option in place after 3 full offseasons since Luck retired.

 

And I think we can agree that Ballard is very unlikely to ever trade a huge haul to get a proven QB.

 

So if we aren't going to get aggressive in the draft OR spend huge on a vet trade, the results will often be half-measure moves at the most important position. And unless another Tom Brady comes along in FA, those type of moves don't move the needle. 

 

As Mike would say, "no more half measures."

[EastStreet]

27 minutes ago, Myles said:

2010 - Suck Award

2016 - Suck Award

2017 - Suck Award

2018 - Suck Award

2019 - Suck Award

2020 - Suck Award

 

Same front office.   I need to see them have a good record again before I put them in the top ten.

 

And now it 2022 lol...

 

By the way, they beat us in 2017 and 2018 regular season games. 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

And now it 2022 lol...

 

By the way, they beat us in 2017 and 2018 regular season games. 

 

We beat them in 2020, Rivers beat Burrow. In 2017, we had a terrible team. Other than 2011, that was the worse team we have had since the 2000's started.

[EastStreet]

6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

We beat them in 2020, Rivers beat Burrow. In 2017, we had a terrible team. Other than 2011, that was the worse team we have had since the 2000's started.

Losing to them in 2018 hurt my soul lol

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Losing to them in 2018 hurt my soul lol

Yeah that was a tough opening day loss. I was pumped up with Andrew back. That loss did suck, freakin to Dalton too of all people