POLL: SHOULD CHRIS BALLARD BE FIRED?

[Zoltan]

20 minutes ago, TaylorTheStudMuffin said:

The eagles GM has a SB. Ballard doesn’t even have a division title. Big difference.

He fired two coaches before he got to the Super Bowl. 

[philba101]

16 hours ago, TaylorTheStudMuffin said:

Ballard isn’t changing. It’s been 6 years. Btw bye.

Exactly. Ballard is not apologetic about using only the draft to build the team. Ballard is not apologetic about tripling down on band-aid QB's. He is not apologetic about way over-paying offensive and defensive lines that are under performing on a weekly basis. He is not apologetic about acquiring no production at the wide receiver position outside of Pittman. He is not apologetic about giving no weapons to his band-aid QB's. I don't want Ballard and Reich to get fired because that means the Colts will probably take some time to be competitive again. But, the management and coach don't ever seem to change or adapt to their previous failures or weaknesses. They double-down on failed strategies. We seem to be getting the same product on a weekly and annual basis that has the same weaknesses, the same setbacks, and the same consistently disappointing results. So maybe it is time for a new direction in management and almost certainly at the head coach position.

[EastStreet]

4 minutes ago, Zoltan said:

He fired two coaches before he got to the Super Bowl. 

[philba101]

16 hours ago, TaylorTheStudMuffin said:

Ballard isn’t changing. It’s been 6 years. Btw bye.

Exactly. Ballard is not apologetic about using only the draft to build the team. Ballard is not apologetic about tripling down on band-aid QB's. He is not apologetic about way over-paying offensive and defensive lines that are under performing on a weekly basis. He is not apologetic about acquiring no production at the wide receiver position outside of Pittman. He is not apologetic about giving no weapons to his band-aid QB's. I don't want Ballard and Reich to get fired because that means the Colts will probably take some time to be competitive again. But, the management and coach don't ever seem to change or adapt to their previous failures or weaknesses. They double-down on failed strategies. We seem to be getting the same product on a weekly and annual basis that has the same weaknesses, the same setbacks, and the same consistently disappointing results. So maybe it is time for a new direction in management and almost certainly at the head coach position. 

[Defjamz26]

2 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Rivers had a relationship/history with Frank. It's logical. Not a big leap, even a small one. 

Ballard said Frank had to convince him (on Wentz)... it's not speculation. 

We know Irsay Wentz gone. Not speculation.

We don't know about Ryan, but wouldn't blame anyone for Ryan. Everyone likely agreed it was best option. 

 

On JB. I don't see Ballard is the pusher for JB. I doubt Ballard wanted to send Luck with unearned cash when he left (Irsay decision), and doubt wanted to extend JB when he didn't need to. 

So basically none of it is on Ballard then? So Jacoby, Rivers, Wentz, and Ryan are all on Irsay or Reich?

 

And you still never answered the other question. If these were all QBs that Ballard was forced into getting, the whole were the guys he was going to get instead? Who was he going to get I deleted of Rivers? Who was he going to get instead of Wentz?

[EastStreet]

3 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

So basically none of it is on Ballard then? So Jacoby, Rivers, Wentz, and Ryan are all on Irsay or Reich?

 

And you still never answered the other question. If these were all QBs that Ballard was forced into getting, the whole were the guys he was going to get instead? Who was he going to get I deleted of Rivers? Who was he going to get instead of Wentz?

 

There are no facts tying Ballard to any QB. Speculation at best. 

Given timing of each QB, seems like were chosen quickly. Perhaps he looked at others, perhaps he didn't. 

[Flash7]

1. Let's not forget that if Ballard had his way, his head coach of choice would have been McDaniels. That's a very questionable decision. He landed on Reich and if you have issues with Reich, then logically you must also have an issue with Ballard's decision making. It was after all, Ballard who hired Reich.

 

2. Who is the GM? Is it Ballard or is it the head coach? We can't blame Ballard's failures on his coaches (Hooker-Pagano, Brisett-Reich, Rivers-Reich, Wentz-Reich, etc.). The buck stops with the GM, who's job it is to make these decisions. When they do not work out, you can't then blame someone else to protect Ballard. If Ballard knew these decisions were going to be a mistake, then he was a fool for making them. Since he made these decisions, the logical conclusion is to understand that he AGREED that the decision he was making was what he thought would be best for the team. He took into consideration Rivers and Wentz's relationship to his head coach, sure, but he made the final decision. They didn't work.

 

3. Ballard has had 6 years. His record currently stands at 42-42-1. Average. 

 

4. I've always thought that Ballard is a good GM, which he is. He took a bad team and turned it into a good team. But I've always had doubts that he has the aggressive mentality necessary to take a good team and turn it into a great team. I fear we will always be a good team, flirting with the playoffs, but that's about it.

[FuedinHatfield]

I think the problem that most people have is we are in year six with Ballard. He's never won a AFC south crown. He's only sniffed the playoffs twice. Never made it past the Divisional round. He by seasons end will more than like be a sub .500 GM in the worst division in football.

 

  On top of that through every action and word he takes or speaks he is so stubbornly arrogant. Whether it be Draft, FA, QB, WR its the old go to "We like what we got there" or insert whatever Ballardism you want to describe mediocrity. When really this is what a lot of fans are starting to see.

[csmopar]

I’d like to see what a Ballard team with a competent coaching staff will do. I’d fire Reich, put Ballard on hot seat saying he has two years to win the division . 
 

the reason I’d give him two years is that a new Gm requires a new restart to be successful. And the way our contracts are, most have cheaper outs after 2024. If Ballard’s roster can’t produce by that time with a new coach, you blow it up entirely. 

[Flash7]

14 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

1. Let's not forget that if Ballard had his way, his head coach of choice would have been McDaniels. That's a very questionable decision. He landed on Reich and if you have issues with Reich, then logically you must also have an issue with Ballard's decision making. It was after all, Ballard who hired Reich.

 

2. Who is the GM? Is it Ballard or is it the head coach? We can't blame Ballard's failures on his coaches (Hooker-Pagano, Brisett-Reich, Rivers-Reich, Wentz-Reich, etc.). The buck stops with the GM, who's job it is to make these decisions. When they do not work out, you can't then blame someone else to protect Ballard. If Ballard knew these decisions were going to be a mistake, then he was a fool for making them. Since he made these decisions, the logical conclusion is to understand that he AGREED that the decision he was making was what he thought would be best for the team. He took into consideration Rivers and Wentz's relationship to his head coach, sure, but he made the final decision. They didn't work.

 

3. Ballard has had 6 years. His record currently stands at 42-42-1. Average. 

 

4. I've always thought that Ballard is a good GM, which he is. He took a bad team and turned it into a good team. But I've always had doubts that he has the aggressive mentality necessary to take a good team and turn it into a great team. I fear we will always be a good team, with plenty of cap space, flirting with the playoffs, but that's about it.

 

[MPStack]

6 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

 

 

3. Ballard has had 6 years. His record currently stands at 42-42-1. Average. 
 

 

Like getting Cs on your report card.

 

6 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

 

4. I've always thought that Ballard is a good GM, which he is. He took a bad team and turned it into a good team.

 

42-42 is good and missed playoffs 3/5 five years? Currently  trending backwards. Grigson was terrible though? 

 

6 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

 

But I've always had doubts that he lacks the aggressive mentality necessary to take a good team and turn it into a great team. I fear we will always be a good team, flirting with the playoffs, but that's about it.

The Colts are a good team? A good GM flirts with the playoffs???? 

 

Sorry, but I don’t get this logic. 

[Flash7]

2 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I’d like to see what a Ballard team with a competent coaching staff will do. I’d fire Reich, put Ballard on hot seat saying he has two years to win the division . 
 

the reason I’d give him two years is that a new Gm requires a new restart to be successful. And the way our contracts are, most have cheaper outs after 2024. If Ballard’s roster can’t produce by that time with a new coach, you blow it up entirely. 

Who's going to choose the head coach? They same guy who wanted McDaniels? The same guy who hired Reich?

[Two_pound]

Two of Ballards 6 years were quarterbacked by Brissett, Ballards first year here Brissett won 4 games. Second time with Brissett starting we won 7 and I recall many people on here saying if Brissett hadn't hurt his knee we would have made the playoffs that year. I don't agree with that, quite frankly if Vinatieri hadn't sucked so bad we probably would have made the playoffs that year. Anyone who watched the Rams last night could say their gm and coach should be fired, that was one bad display of football. Right now we have a 1/2 game worse record than the Rams, so why all the panic about Ballard and Reich?

[csmopar]

15 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

Who's going to choose the head coach? They same guy who wanted McDaniels? The same guy who hired Reich?

McDaniels: ALOT on this forum wanted him.

reich: he was the only nut left on the tree, we were kind of out of options. 
 

 

as for who I’d want, I’m honestly not even sure. 

[Flash7]

3 minutes ago, Two_pound said:

Two of Ballards 6 years were quarterbacked by Brissett, Ballards first year here Brissett won 4 games. Second time with Brissett starting we won 7 and I recall many people on here saying if Brissett hadn't hurt his knee we would have made the playoffs that year. I don't agree with that, quite frankly if Vinatieri hadn't sucked so bad we probably would have made the playoffs that year. Anyone who watched the Rams last night could say their gm and coach should be fired, that was one bad display of football. Right now we have a 1/2 game worse record than the Rams, so why all the panic about Ballard and Reich?

Didn't the Rams just win a championship? And we're comparing them with the Colts situation, why?

[Two_pound]

Because that would be an overreaction just like much of the complaining on this forum. And also if you haven't noticed the rams haven't played very well in their 4 games this year, maybe they are "regressing".

[Dobbinblitz]

In the end it will be Ballard's own arrogance that may well do him in. Most knowledgeable football fans would recognize that if you sign an aging immobile QB you would then need to invest in a proven LT. The same can be said about a room full of unproven WR's - a bridge veteran receiver is what the situation calls for. 

 

It's like he is operating under a blueprint that has never undergone revisions.

He may well fall on this sword.  

 

[Flash7]

6 minutes ago, Two_pound said:

Because that would be an overreaction just like much of the complaining on this forum. And also if you haven't noticed the rams haven't played very well in their 4 games this year, maybe they are "regressing".

It would be an overreaction by Rams fans, definitely, due to the fact that their coach and GM have just proven their ability to win a Championship. The Colts have not even won the division under Ballard. It's not much of an over reaction to question their abilities, in my opinion.

[Two_pound]

The main reason I don't question their abilities is I lived through the 70's and 80's when we weren't even competitive(4 playoff appearances from '72-'94). The Ballard/Reich era is actually fun compared to those years. Most people on here just keep reliving the Manning/Luck years, 2 incredible franchise qb's that come along once in a generation and we got lucky and had 2 in a row. And how many championships did the Manning/Luck years yield us? So I really don't understand all the griping about Ballard and Reich. Even when we had Manning and Luck we lost games we shouldn't have.

[Mr. Irrelevant]

This coming off season he has to go all-in on finding the young franchise QB for the future. I don’t care if that player have to sit a year behind Ryan, that is not important. If Ballard refuse to do this, he should be gone. Simple as that.

 

note that this job might also include getting top draft picks for 2024 if they deem the QB class to be rubbish in 2023. But the future have to be set up in the Spring of 2023.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Zoltan said:

He fired two coaches before he got to the Super Bowl. 

And gave the HC who won the SB good players, as well as the HC he has now.  Philly is a great example of how a team fares when the roster goes up, then goes down, then goes up again.

 

 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Flash7 said:

1. Let's not forget that if Ballard had his way, his head coach of choice would have been McDaniels. That's a very questionable decision. He landed on Reich and if you have issues with Reich, then logically you must also have an issue with Ballard's decision making. It was after all, Ballard who hired Reich.

 

2. Who is the GM? Is it Ballard or is it the head coach? We can't blame Ballard's failures on his coaches (Hooker-Pagano, Brisett-Reich, Rivers-Reich, Wentz-Reich, etc.). The buck stops with the GM, who's job it is to make these decisions. When they do not work out, you can't then blame someone else to protect Ballard. If Ballard knew these decisions were going to be a mistake, then he was a fool for making them. Since he made these decisions, the logical conclusion is to understand that he AGREED that the decision he was making was what he thought would be best for the team. He took into consideration Rivers and Wentz's relationship to his head coach, sure, but he made the final decision. They didn't work.

 

3. Ballard has had 6 years. His record currently stands at 42-42-1. Average. 

 

4. I've always thought that Ballard is a good GM, which he is. He took a bad team and turned it into a good team. But I've always had doubts that he has the aggressive mentality necessary to take a good team and turn it into a great team. I fear we will always be a good team, flirting with the playoffs, but that's about it.

Going back to the McDaniels choice a bit of a stretch, IMO.  Lots of HCs may have had questions about Luck, and chose other teams because of it.  Other teams may have had a high draft pick (probably, if they were a bad team who fired their coach).  The Colts had neither a certain QB or a high draft pick...a competitive disadvantage for Ballard. 

 

HOOKER.  Never understood the Hooker pick.  I had questions about Ballard from the get go.  If you are giving your HC a trial period, you don't have to commit pick 15 to a johnny one note FS that only really fits that HCs scheme...and is a poor fit for the next scheme you might install.  Give Pags some players, but my goodness use pick 15 on something more versatile for the long term.  Picking Hooker, then firing Pags after Hooker's rookie season, looks like a GM who has no plan and is simply picking BPA.

 

HINES.  Hines has been used the same way since he was drafted.  If Ballard sees this and doesn't like it, make Frank commit to changes before you sign Hines to great backup money.  If Frank does not commit, then don't sign HInes.  The contract looks like Ballard agrees with the way Hines is being used.

 

MACK/JT.  We use them the same way, as between the OTs runners.  Again, if you want different kind of running plays called, then don't trade up to pick a RB from Wisconsin who only ran between the tackles his entire college career...it may be all that he knows how to do.  It looks like Ballard and Frank agree on what a RB should do.

 

We've discussed EDGE, WRs and other positions.

 

Overall, he has a blind spot when it comes to valuing positions and allocating capital accordingly.  He signs good players because they are good players...like that's all there is to it.

[AKB]

hopefully they shock us and win thursday 

[philba101]

53 minutes ago, Two_pound said:

Two of Ballards 6 years were quarterbacked by Brissett, Ballards first year here Brissett won 4 games. Second time with Brissett starting we won 7 and I recall many people on here saying if Brissett hadn't hurt his knee we would have made the playoffs that year. I don't agree with that, quite frankly if Vinatieri hadn't sucked so bad we probably would have made the playoffs that year. Anyone who watched the Rams last night could say their gm and coach should be fired, that was one bad display of football. Right now we have a 1/2 game worse record than the Rams, so why all the panic about Ballard and Reich?

Simple, our GM and Coach don't have a Super Bowl win on their resumes. Our GM and coach don't even have a divisional title on their resumes. Plus, we seem to be getting worse each year. Does that sound like a recipe for success to you?

[AKB]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Going back to the McDaniels choice a bit of a stretch, IMO.  Lots of HCs may have had questions about Luck, and chose other teams because of it.  Other teams may have had a high draft pick (probably, if they were a bad team who fired their coach).  The Colts had neither a certain QB or a high draft pick...a competitive disadvantage for Ballard. 

 

HOOKER.  Never understood the Hooker pick.  I had questions about Ballard from the get go.  If you are giving your HC a trial period, you don't have to commit pick 15 to a johnny one note FS that only really fits that HCs scheme...and is a poor fit for the next scheme you might install.  Give Pags some players, but my goodness use pick 15 on something more versatile for the long term.  Picking Hooker, then firing Pags after Hooker's rookie season, looks like a GM who has no plan and is simply picking BPA.

 

HINES.  Hines has been used the same way since he was drafted.  If Ballard sees this and doesn't like it, make Frank commit to changes before you sign Hines to great backup money.  If Frank does not commit, then don't sign HInes.  The contract looks like Ballard agrees with the way Hines is being used.

 

MACK/JT.  We use them the same way, as between the OTs runners.  Again, if you want different kind of running plays called, then don't trade up to pick a RB from Wisconsin who only ran between the tackles his entire college career...it may be all that he knows how to do.  It looks like Ballard and Frank agree on what a RB should do.

 

We've discussed EDGE, WRs and other positions.

 

Overall, he has a blind spot when it comes to valuing positions and allocating capital accordingly.  He signs good players because they are good players...like that's all there is to it.

also to be fair Hooker is still a decent safety. ever since he landed with the cowboy he has played decently well. 

[DougDew]

17 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

also to be fair Hooker is still a decent safety. ever since he landed with the cowboy he has played decently well. 

He's come around.  But he wasn't drafted as high as he was to take 4 years to be a complete split safety.  He was drafted high to be the single-high safety in Pags' scheme...when Ballard had to know that he might fire Pags at the end of the season.  Always seemed like a weird way to invest the 15th pick in the draft. IMO.

[Defjamz26]

1 hour ago, Flash7 said:

2. Who is the GM? Is it Ballard or is it the head coach? We can't blame Ballard's failures on his coaches (Hooker-Pagano, Brisett-Reich, Rivers-Reich, Wentz-Reich, etc.). The buck stops with the GM, who's job it is to make these decisions. When they do not work out, you can't then blame someone else to protect Ballard. If Ballard knew these decisions were going to be a mistake, then he was a fool for making them.

I agreed with the whole post you made, but this part in particular stands out. There’s is way too much talk of Ballard being forced into acquiring certain QBs which I think is blasphemy. He’s the GM. He gets the final call. Trying to scapegoat coaches and even the owner on these poor QB decisions is silly.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

I agreed with the whole post you made, but this part in particular stands out. There’s is way too much talk of Ballard being forced into acquiring certain QBs which I think is blasphemy. He’s the GM. He gets the final call. Trying to scapegoat coaches and even the owner on these poor QB decisions is silly.

I don't think anybody forced him to sign JB as a starter and avoid looking for a younger draft pick.  While Frank certainly thought Wentz would be good, that doesn't mean that Ballard objected to Wentz and had to be convinced by Frank.   And Ballard was reportedly about to sign Winston before Ryan came available for a draft pick and money.  If we wouldn't have had Ryan, we'd have Winston.  I don't see Irsay forcing any of those questionable decisions on the GM.

[AKB]

44 minutes ago, DougDew said:

He's come around.  But he wasn't drafted as high as he was to take 4 years to be a complete split safety.  He was drafted high to be the single-high safety in Pags' scheme...when Ballard had to know that he might fire Pags at the end of the season.  Always seemed like a weird way to invest the 15th pick in the draft. IMO.

if you go and look at his college tape he put film out that indicated he had the sideline speed to play single high. that firt big injury seemed to hamper his speed and acceleration some. it wasn't my fav ballard pick but i don't think it was his worst. 

[chad72]

2 hours ago, Flash7 said:

1. Let's not forget that if Ballard had his way, his head coach of choice would have been McDaniels. That's a very questionable decision. He landed on Reich and if you have issues with Reich, then logically you must also have an issue with Ballard's decision making. It was after all, Ballard who hired Reich.

 

2. Who is the GM? Is it Ballard or is it the head coach? We can't blame Ballard's failures on his coaches (Hooker-Pagano, Brisett-Reich, Rivers-Reich, Wentz-Reich, etc.). The buck stops with the GM, who's job it is to make these decisions. When they do not work out, you can't then blame someone else to protect Ballard. If Ballard knew these decisions were going to be a mistake, then he was a fool for making them. Since he made these decisions, the logical conclusion is to understand that he AGREED that the decision he was making was what he thought would be best for the team. He took into consideration Rivers and Wentz's relationship to his head coach, sure, but he made the final decision. They didn't work.

 

3. Ballard has had 6 years. His record currently stands at 42-42-1. Average. 

 

4. I've always thought that Ballard is a good GM, which he is. He took a bad team and turned it into a good team. But I've always had doubts that he has the aggressive mentality necessary to take a good team and turn it into a great team. I fear we will always be a good team, flirting with the playoffs, but that's about it.

 

You are what your record says you are.  

 

He just wasn't fortunate like Polian was with a QB that could cover blemishes on the roster but that also means his success in the NFL would revolve about the "1 man" he campaigned it shouldn't be all about, tough position to be in. 

[JediXMan]

Ballard really thought playing a G out of position would lead to something positive lol.

[DougDew]

21 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

if you go and look at his college tape he put film out that indicated he had the sideline speed to play single high. that firt big injury seemed to hamper his speed and acceleration some. it wasn't my fav ballard pick but i don't think it was his worst. 

I don't know if I would call it a "bad" pick.   I'm simply saying that Hooker was definitely thought to be a piece of the Pagano defense at a time when the GM was not committed to run the Pagano defense for the same period of time that a Top 15 player would expected to contribute.  A Top 15 pick is a 4 or 5 year commitment, but the same level of commitment to the scheme fit was not there with Pags as the HC.    That's just incomplete vision or planning with how to deploy such valuable capital, IMO.

[Two_pound]

Yep, you are what your record says you are. From 2018 -2021 only ten teams have won more games than the Colts. The juggernaut steelers have 1 more win, the incomparable Pats have 3 more. The chiefs and saints have the most, and saints have zero sb appearances in that span. What's kind of funny is we scored 220 more points than the steelers in that span, but the steelers still squeezed into the playoffs last year ahead of us. Sometimes you just get lucky I guess.

[chad72]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

He's come around.  But he wasn't drafted as high as he was to take 4 years to be a complete split safety.  He was drafted high to be the single-high safety in Pags' scheme...when Ballard had to know that he might fire Pags at the end of the season.  Always seemed like a weird way to invest the 15th pick in the draft. IMO.

 

Yep. To me, if Pagano was going to be a lame duck coach, it made more sense to invest in skill positions that would transcend systems than defensive players that could become a moot point since you already have an idea as to what defensive system you are going to gravitate towards. It was not a useful draft, and lo behold, the best players out of it was a "skill position" player named Marlon Mack and Grover Stewart (NT that can plug the middle in any system), both in the 4th round, IMO.  

[chad72]

12 minutes ago, Two_pound said:

Yep, you are what your record says you are. From 2018 -2021 only ten teams have won more games than the Colts. The juggernaut steelers have 1 more win, the incomparable Pats have 3 more. The chiefs and saints have the most, and saints have zero sb appearances in that span. What's kind of funny is we scored 220 more points than the steelers in that span, but the steelers still squeezed into the playoffs last year ahead of us. Sometimes you just get lucky I guess.

 

What about points scored against? We know it is more than PPG on O.

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Yep. To me, if Pagano was going to be a lame duck coach, it made more sense to invest in skill positions that would transcend systems than defensive players that could become a moot point since you already have an idea as to what defensive system you are going to gravitate towards. It was not a useful draft, and lo behold, the best players out of it was a "skill position" player named Marlon Mack and Grover Stewart (NT that can plug the middle in any system), both in the 4th round, IMO.  

Not to get into the woulda shoulda of individual picks, but Marlon Humphrey was the very next pick at 16 by BAL.  He played a more valuable position, filled a need with Vontae breaking down, and could have transitioned to being a very good physical zone corner.  We could have had a young core player at Corner instead of having our best corner being aging vets like Rhodes and Gilmore.  Could have paired those vets with MH and be set at the position for the last few years.  The ramifications of a missed obvious pick cascades through many other decisions going forward.   

 

Would we have picked RYS....or Deebo?

 

As you know, this isn't hindsight about Hooker getting hurt.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

I agreed with the whole post you made, but this part in particular stands out. There’s is way too much talk of Ballard being forced into acquiring certain QBs which I think is blasphemy. He’s the GM. He gets the final call. Trying to scapegoat coaches and even the owner on these poor QB decisions is silly.

Yep. At any point he can say no. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

20 minutes ago, JediXMan said:

Ballard really thought playing a G out of position would lead to something positive lol.

Funny thing is he has been better then the 3 high priced vets on the other side.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I don't think anybody forced him to sign JB as a starter and avoid looking for a younger draft pick.  While Frank certainly thought Wentz would be good, that doesn't mean that Ballard objected to Wentz and had to be convinced by Frank.   And Ballard was reportedly about to sign Winston before Ryan came available for a draft pick and money.  If we wouldn't have had Ryan, we'd have Winston.  I don't see Irsay forcing any of those questionable decisions on the GM.

Ballard is on record saying they liked csrson a lot in 2016 for KC. He just went to high. Bsllard did a lot of scouting on him. So yeah saying Frank begged and pleaded for Carson is so silly.

[chad72]

10 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Not to get into the woulda shoulda of individual picks, but Marlon Humphrey was the very next pick at 16 by BAL.  He played a more valuable position, filled a need with Vontae breaking down, and could have transitioned to being a very good physical zone corner.  We could have had a young core player at Corner instead of having our best corner being aging vets like Rhodes and Gilmore.  Could have paired those vets with MH and be set at the position for the last few years.  The ramifications of a missed obvious pick cascades through many other decisions going forward.   

 

Would we have picked RYS....or Deebo?

 

As you know, this isn't hindsight about Hooker getting hurt.

 

Deebo was running circles around guys in the Senior Bowl. He was coming off stellar production at the FBS level in a good SEC conference. Plus, we were coming off a year where Julian Edelman won MVP in the SB underscoring how important it was for a QB to get a guy that could separate and get open fast. A lot of us were clamoring for him. A lot of us were clamoring for A J Brown too. Both guys - Deebo and A J Brown drafted in Round 2, right? The one time we went for a WR early in Round 2, we got Pittman and that has worked out for us, so far so good with Pierce, just don't run him in the middle too much which is not his strength.

 

Now, what do we have to show for it? Ngakoue for RYS? Yep, a ripple effect indeed. At some point, the players should just feel like "enough is enough" and man up and play, hopefully it starts this TNF.