Where has Ballard been??

[joeb]

On 10/25/2022 at 7:34 AM, lollygagger8 said:

It's kind of disturbing how little Chris Ballard has been available/talking to the media. 

 

Over the years as GM, he's been on a lot of talk shows, done lots of pressers, and this year (and last) he's been a ghost. 

 

He's also pretty much left Frank out on his own with this whole QB change. 

He's hiding. Watching this team in its current state is like watching The 3 Stooges run a NFL team. We think we got rid of Wentz and all is well. Only to get ourselves into a worse situation. 

[DougDew]

8 hours ago, Zoltan said:

 

Yes, because you have to have two teams to make a trade and the thing is the top 6 picks none of them were traded, which I guarantee there were teams trying to trade above the chargers and Miami to draft a QB, but no moves were made so why do you think the Colts would of been able to move up 9/10 spots to get one of those two? Lions needed a CB bad and Okudah was the best in the draft if they traded with us they would of lost him same with the Giants with Thomas they needed a OT to protect their franchise QB in Jones.

 

Now Love and Hurts are more believable but right now it looks like a good move by the Colts to not pick Love and if you pick him you are not getting Michael Pittman or Jonathan Taylor and maybe you're not getting both. Hurts was probably the most realistic one but no one thought he was a starter and some thought he should switch to RB.

Thinking about the decision tree of alternative drafting is usually futile.  I could say that if Ballard took Marlon Humphrey instead of Hooker, we wouldn't have taken RYS and would have DE Montez Sweat, and we would not have Paye but would have LT Darrisaw.  We'd have our LT, EDGE, and shut down corner in their primes (which is a roster that is REALLY only a QB away).  Each decision creates a different roster, a different record, and different draft slotting and capital the next year.  You can't go down the rabbit hole of individual alternative realities.

 

I think the criticism of Ballard comes with his approach of using premium capital on nonpremium positions, which soaks up the capital needed to move around the draft to get the premium players, or even trade for a vet QB that nobody here even considered but might have been available.  You just have to look at where we stand 5 years into this, IMO, because the woulda coulda shoulda has way too many branches.

[Indyfan4life]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Thinking about the decision tree of alternative drafting is usually futile.  I could say that if Ballard took Marlon Humphrey instead of Hooker, we wouldn't have taken RYS and would have DE Montez Sweat, and we would not have Paye but would have LT Darrisaw.  We'd have our LT, EDGE, and shut down corner in their primes (which is a roster that is REALLY only a QB away).  Each decision creates a different roster, a different record, and different draft slotting and capital the next year.  You can't go down the rabbit hole of individual alternative realities.

 

I think the criticism of Ballard comes with his approach of using premium capital on nonpremium positions, which soaks up the capital needed to move around the draft to get the premium players, or even trade for a vet QB that nobody here even considered but might have been available.  You just have to look at where we stand 5 years into this, IMO, because the woulda coulda shoulda has way too many branches.

I'm going to be nice and say I mostly agree with you on this for a change. Part of the issue, too, is at the time of the pick, the Colts staff feel they are making the correct decision in drafting someone for that position. Obviously, drafting anyone is a crap shoot because no one knows just how that player is going to pan out. He may be a bust regardless of the round and position, which then leads to scrutiny and criticism. I don't fault Ballard for paying a guy like Nelson and Leonard, even if Nelson isn't a premium position, he's still been worth the money. The issue is, having a stellar LG while you have an average AT best LT is going to make that guard not look as good. If I'm lined up across from Nelson or Pryor/Kelley, then obviously I know bull rushing through the LT and forcing Nelson to make a split second decision on who to help block is in my favor.

 

Yes, drafting differently COULD have lead to a different Colts team currently. We can't dwell on what if. What if Peyton didn't a neck issue? What if Luck didn't get murdered every single game? What if Vandershank didn't miss that FG against the Steelers?

 

Point is, I've become less of a Ballard fan recently, but you truly cannot fault him for some of the decisions being made when they were being made.

[MikeCurtis]

22 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

You folks are hilarious! Ballard is still considered (within the industry) as one of the best GM's in the NFL - though he is not without his faults, but in the current situation it is easy for me to see what's going on! The lion's share of the blame goes to the guy who states that they were unprepared and outcoached. Why would you look any farther than those statements?

 

The team has come out flat every week since week 16 of last year against the Raiders, for example:

 

Week 16 (Loss): 10 Points in the second quarter

Week 17 (Loss): 3 points in the second quarter

Week 1 (Tie): 3 points in the first quarter

Week 2 (Loss): 0 points for the ENTIRE game

Week 3 (Win): 7 points in the first quarter and 3 in the second quarter

Week 4 (Loss): 10 points in the second quarter

Week 5 (Win): 3 points in the second quarter

Week 6 (Win): 13 points in the second quarter

Week 7 (Loss): 0 points in the first half

 

Last 9 Games: 3-5-1

 

Reich has lost this team. They no longer respond to his voice as a leader.

 

1st Quarter: 10 points in 9 games = 1.11 points per quarter

2nd Quarter: 42 Points in 9 games = 4.67 points per quarter

 

Frank Reich is one of those coaches that is better at just being the OC and not the Head Coach imho......

 

I agree with your take on Frank R 

 

Frank Reich works for Chris Ballard

 

Ongoing problems with coaching HAS to be address by GM

 

Not having a QB on the roster is a GM problem

 

Rivers, Wentz, Ryan - Are personnel problems.... Thats a GMs role

 

No topflight rookie QBs brought in to develop

 

My fear in the draft?  We will draft a LT first......  "gotta build the lines"

 

Both guys have "blood" on their hands

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GoColts8818]

8 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

He drafted a Guard with Josh Allen on the Board. He's as close to being Bert Jones as anyone can be. I know we had luck, but he was a question mark both physically and mentally at the time and if he was so good at evaluating talent he should have known how good Allen is and at the very worst he could have flipped Allen for a few #1's if Luck panned out.

He wasn’t taking Allen with Luck on the roster.  No one knew he was going to retire after that season.  That’s just 20/20 hind sight at its best.  

[Nickster]

21 hours ago, Dr. T said:

The main reason we fell apart at the end of last season is that the QB and all of the starting OL refused to listen to their owner and get vaxed. Yes, then they all got covid and played like crap for weeks afterward. The anti-vax OL players they kept are still playing like crap. Science confirms that COVID can cause cardiomyopathy in young males. Maybe Kelly, Q and the others that refused to do the right thing for the good of the team have been permanently damaged by the virus because they preferred to listen to conspiracy theories instead of SCIENCE and their owner. 

Science huh?

[Nickster]

11 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

Ryan looked every bit of an upgrade and that’s not just fans opinions here.  That was the narrative nationally.  Unfortunately it didn’t work out.  The largest reason it didn’t work out was because of the line, Reich even acknowledged that when he said they didn’t keep their end of the deal.  That was going to be an issue even with Wentz and when Wentz was under pressure is when he would make mistakes.  So no I don’t buy that Wentz was better.  I think he would have had the same issues Ryan had without the fourth quarter comebacks Ryan had.   
 

Also, if you think someone isn’t the answer you don’t just keep them and hope for a different result.  You try something else and keep trying until you find the answer.  That’s why getting ride of Wentz was the right move even though what they tried to replace him didn’t work.  The fact Ryan didn’t work out doesn’t make dumping Wentz now wrong.  It just means getting Ryan was it’s own mistake.  

 

I see what you are saying but disagree with a couple things.

 

I thought as did others although not the majority that Matt Ryan was probably washed and not a good fit for this team.

 

So I think it would have been better to keep CW rather than hire Wentz.

 

I think the best thing would have been to drop Wentz, hire some RPO, zone read guy or I guess go with Sam and get ready for this upcoming draft which is supposed to be QB rich. 

[Moosejawcolt]

16 hours ago, James said:

Hiding of course.

 

Dude is ridiculously arrogant and dismissive when faced with tough (but fair) questions.

He is an above average talent evaluator, but there is more to being a GM than that. His roster-building philosophy is obsolete in today's NFL. Our team is very talented on average, yes, but that talent is concentrated in positions that are of lesser importance in a pass-dominated league: RB, interior line, LB. Meanwhile we have neglected/failed to address QB, WR (although it’s looking better with Pierce now) LT, edge rusher. Inexcusable.

 

 

Is his way of building a team obsolete. I would say not really. The major problem with his tesm building is  this. He has sunk a ton of assets into both the D and O line. The D line had performed well this year I would day. However Ballard has a lot of misses in drafting D linemen which has lead to holes elsewhere on the team.  The Oline is an absolute disaster. If we were able to build the old Dallas Oline and have thr 49ers current D line then I would say we could make some noise. His philosophy is really wrong he is just not good at carrying out that philosophy 

[RollerColt]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

I think the criticism of Ballard comes with his approach of using premium capital on nonpremium positions, which soaks up the capital needed to move around the draft to get the premium players, or even trade for a vet QB that nobody here even considered but might have been available. 

That's how I feel about it. It's not his ability to draft, it's his philosophy in building a team. 

 

Bills, Chiefs, Bengals, Chargers... They had good foundations, and in some ways already had good players in place before they got their QB of the future. It's not too far from what we were trying to do. The difference? As you said premium foundation players. That and all four of those teams drafted their QB. We tried to bandaid our problems, and it burned us... 

[Moosejawcolt]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Thinking about the decision tree of alternative drafting is usually futile.  I could say that if Ballard took Marlon Humphrey instead of Hooker, we wouldn't have taken RYS and would have DE Montez Sweat, and we would not have Paye but would have LT Darrisaw.  We'd have our LT, EDGE, and shut down corner in their primes (which is a roster that is REALLY only a QB away).  Each decision creates a different roster, a different record, and different draft slotting and capital the next year.  You can't go down the rabbit hole of individual alternative realities.

 

I think the criticism of Ballard comes with his approach of using premium capital on nonpremium positions, which soaks up the capital needed to move around the draft to get the premium players, or even trade for a vet QB that nobody here even considered but might have been available.  You just have to look at where we stand 5 years into this, IMO, because the woulda coulda shoulda has way too many branches.

Totally agree. The one area u can critisize Ballard on in terms of drafting  is the D and O line. For the amount of assets and money invested, I would consider neither to be on the cusp of being elite. The D line , however, is much farther along. The O line needs a LT badly. For all those people who devalue the LT postion, it's absence  has greatly affected the O line' performance. 

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, Indyfan4life said:

Point is, I've become less of a Ballard fan recently, but you truly cannot fault him for some of the decisions being made when they were being made.

Separating two things:  

 

I thought Ballard generally made good picks at the time he made them....did not reach and got solid players.  The only ones I questioned at the time was Hooker/Humphrey...RYS/Deebo...and why he bothered to draft project Ben in the second round....and wondered about Lewis as a perceptual tweener.  From a player/talent perspective, I thought he has been very good.

 

But...I also was not enthusiastic about the disinterest in positional value.  I saw that the players he picked were kinda low hanging fruit from a risk standpoint and that the lack of playmakers would eventually catch up.  QBs, LTs,, Flankers EDGEs, are usually top 20 picks and there just aren't enough of those picks in less than a four year window.

 

And, he gave up two players worth of good capital to get Buckner.  A high first round pick AND $15M per year (what ever his tag was) 

 

He needs to stick to a philosophy that certain positions simply are not worth the price, no matter how good the player is at that position.  It takes capital away from you down the road.  It just does.

 

The more recent drafts are encouraging.  Paye at Top 20 in 2021, then Flanker, Dynamic TE, and LT with the highest capital he had on the board.  The problem is that it will take the LT a couple of seasons to play like we need, because we didn't have the first round pick.

[Moosejawcolt]

24 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Separating two things:  

 

I thought Ballard generally made good picks at the time he made them....did not reach and got solid players.  The only ones I questioned at the time was Hooker/Humphrey...RYS/Deebo...and why he bothered to draft project Ben in the second round....and wondered about Lewis as a perceptual tweener.  From a player/talent perspective, I thought he has been very good.

 

But...I also was not enthusiastic about the disinterest in positional value.  I saw that the players he picked were kinda low hanging fruit from a risk standpoint and that the lack of playmakers would eventually catch up.  QBs, LTs,, Flankers EDGEs, are usually top 20 picks and there just aren't enough of those picks in less than a four year window.

 

And, he gave up two players worth of good capital to get Buckner.  A high first round pick AND $15M per year (what ever his tag was) 

 

He needs to stick to a philosophy that certain positions simply are not worth the price, no matter how good the player is at that position.  It takes capital away from you down the road.  It just does.

 

The more recent drafts are encouraging.  Paye at Top 20 in 2021, then Flanker, Dynamic TE, and LT with the highest capital he had on the board.  The problem is that it will take the LT a couple of seasons to play like we need, because we didn't have the first round pick.

Actually this year, I tought they got it right and I was totally on board. Everyone questioned the different positional groupings on this team. Sure, we had some concerns about the Oline but we thought Nelson, Kelly and Smith would be able to make up for the lack of talent at LT and RG. The issue however is that those 3 are a big part of the problem and no one saw that coming.

[RollerColt]

11 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

The issue however is that those 3 are a big part of the problem and no one saw that coming.

Yes. All 3 have regressed significantly and all 3 are fighting some sort of nagging injury. 

[BlackTiger]

1 hour ago, GoColts8818 said:

He wasn’t taking Allen with Luck on the roster.  No one knew he was going to retire after that season.  That’s just 20/20 hind sight at its best.  

I wanted us take Lamar even with Luck on the roster. That might sound crazy or revisionist but its what i really wanted at the time

 

For one i truly thought Luck was going to retire in the next few years.  I thought he would be gone by the time he hit 35

 

LJ could have also played RB or WR in the mean time

[Dobbinblitz]

Excuse Me Mr. Ballard....... Jim is on the line one.

 

[MikeCurtis]

My last comment on Ballard......

 

He has a belief that an average QB will take this team with its "super" line to the SB

 

Thats his core belief

 

Can we agree that his arrogant hubris is a leading CAUSE for where we are ?

 

 

 

[Nickster]

10 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

My last comment on Ballard......

 

He has a belief that an average QB will take this team with its "super" line to the SB

 

Thats his core belief

 

Can we agree that his arrogant hubris is a leading CAUSE for where we are ?

 

 

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

16 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

My last comment on Ballard......

 

He has a belief that an average QB will take this team with its "super" line to the SB

 

Thats his core belief

 

Can we agree that his arrogant hubris is a leading CAUSE for where we are ?

 

 

 

Yep, that is indeed his core belief … but it is not arrogant…

 

 

 

 

… it is stupid

[philba101]

On 10/25/2022 at 10:16 AM, Colt Overseas said:

I think Ballard will be given a shot by Irsay to draft a QB (assuming Elhinger doesn't work out). That would constitute as Ballard's last chance.   

Do we really want this? Also, how long does Ballard get to find out if the drafted QB is going to work? 2 years, 3 years? Maybe it can be blamed on the new coach at that point and Ballard can get two or three more years when he is replaced? Sounds like a cycle we should avoid altogether.

[Nickster]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

Yep, that is indeed his core belief … but it is not arrogant…

 

 

 

 

… it is stupid

[Superman]

4 hours ago, Nickster said:

I think the best thing would have been to drop Wentz, hire some RPO, zone read guy or I guess go with Sam and get ready for this upcoming draft which is supposed to be QB rich. 

 

When we traded Wentz, I assumed we'd roll with someone like Mariota this season, and either draft a mid round guy in 2022 (Mariota and Ridder would have made sense to me), or plan to draft a QB in 2023.

 

Matt Ryan coming available was unexpected, and he didn't come at a high cost (draft wise). If he retires after this season, his salary comes off the books, which is what I'm hoping happens at this point.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I think it was mentioned that the RB coach Scotty Montgomery is a great RPO guy.  So maybe they will be able to get back to what they have always wanted to do. I actually think Sam fits the skill position players we have a ton better then Ryan. Imagine running some misdirection with Sam Taylor and Hines and nobody no who has the ball. 

[RollerColt]

2 minutes ago, TaylorTheStudMuffin said:

I think it was mentioned that the RB coach Scotty Montgomery is a great RPO guy.  So maybe they will be able to get back to what they have always wanted to do. I actually think Sam fits the skill position players we have a ton better then Ryan. Imagine running some misdirection with Sam Taylor and Hines and nobody no who has the ball. 

Yes, that is a style Scotty is very comfortable with from his Duke coaching days. 

[MikeCurtis]

36 minutes ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

Yep, that is indeed his core belief … but it is not arrogant…

 

 

 

 

… it is stupid

Stupid + Arrogant

[Thunderbolt]

Silence is Golden, out of sight, out of mind with him.  Probably couldn't handle all the questions about how he systematically destroyed this franchise and setting them back.  

[DougDew]

54 minutes ago, Superman said:

When we traded Wentz, I assumed we'd roll with someone like Mariota this season, and either draft a mid round guy in 2022 (Mariota and Ridder would have made sense to me), or plan to draft a QB in 2023.

Which is exactly the combo ATL put together after they traded Ryan.  I wanted MM as the bridge QB.

 

Ryan.  Win now, without the roster to really support it, IMO.

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Which is exactly the combo ATL put together after they traded Ryan.  I wanted MM as the bridge QB.

 

Ryan.  Win now, without the roster to really support it, IMO.

 

I disagree with the "win now" categorization of that move, or of the Colts approach. This is a fan/media narrative that I don't think the team was pursuing, nor do I think their offseason reflected that mentality. 

 

And yeah, ATL put together that same combo, and I'm eager to see what happens, but so far Ridder hasn't played a down, and Atlanta isn't exactly making headlines. 

 

What should be obvious though is we have to stop jumping at other team's castoffs. The Chargers knew Rivers wasn't for long, they knew they needed to turn the page; we took him, he played reasonably well, and retired. The Eagles knew Wentz wasn't their answer, and they turned to a more limited QB who they're now having some success with; we took Wentz, it wasn't a good fit. The Falcons knew they had to think about the future at QB; we took Ryan, and he made it seven games.

 

We have to draft and develop a good QB prospect. Any other strategy has to be rejected at this point.

[Moosejawcolt]

1 hour ago, MikeCurtis said:

My last comment on Ballard......

 

He has a belief that an average QB will take this team with its "super" line to the SB

 

Thats his core belief

 

Can we agree that his arrogant hubris is a leading CAUSE for where we are ?

 

 

 

My assessment of Ballard is this. He is more show man than substance.  How do I know this? He has a losing record, no division titles and no play off wins. Yet, people on this board still think he is an above average GM. You are what your record says u r. He is a below average gm. 

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree with the "win now" categorization of that move, or of the Colts approach. This is a fan/media narrative that I don't think the team was pursuing, nor do I think their offseason reflected that mentality. 

 

And yeah, ATL put together that same combo, and I'm eager to see what happens, but so far Ridder hasn't played a down, and Atlanta isn't exactly making headlines. 

 

What should be obvious though is we have to stop jumping at other team's castoffs. The Chargers knew Rivers wasn't for long, they knew they needed to turn the page; we took him, he played reasonably well, and retired. The Eagles knew Wentz wasn't their answer, and they turned to a more limited QB who they're now having some success with; we took Wentz, it wasn't a good fit. The Falcons knew they had to think about the future at QB; we took Ryan, and he made it seven games.

 

We have to draft and develop a good QB prospect. Any other strategy has to be rejected at this point.

?  How could trading for an expensive 37  yo QB be anything other than win now?  I'm not following you on that like at all. 

[MikeCurtis]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

We have to draft and develop a good QB prospect. Any other strategy has to be rejected at this point.

This...... times 1000

[Superman]

Just now, Nickster said:

?  How could trading for an expensive 37  yo QB be anything other than win now?  I'm not following you on that like at all. 

 

Expensive is relative. Top QBs make $40M+/year now, the Colts would be paying Ryan $27m/year. 

 

They traded for him thinking they could compete with him. Of course they wanted to win now. My point is that they did not think his window would be this short.

 

They also didn't make corresponding roster decisions that would reflect a "win now" mentality. Instead, they relied on young, unproven players, at multiple positions. 

[DougDew]

42 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree with the "win now" categorization of that move, or of the Colts approach. This is a fan/media narrative that I don't think the team was pursuing, nor do I think their offseason reflected that mentality. 

 

And yeah, ATL put together that same combo, and I'm eager to see what happens, but so far Ridder hasn't played a down, and Atlanta isn't exactly making headlines. 

 

What should be obvious though is we have to stop jumping at other team's castoffs. The Chargers knew Rivers wasn't for long, they knew they needed to turn the page; we took him, he played reasonably well, and retired. The Eagles knew Wentz wasn't their answer, and they turned to a more limited QB who they're now having some success with; we took Wentz, it wasn't a good fit. The Falcons knew they had to think about the future at QB; we took Ryan, and he made it seven games.

 

We have to draft and develop a good QB prospect. Any other strategy has to be rejected at this point.

If the expensive vet QB route wasn't win now because their opinion that the roster is close......or simply an inability to tolerate the pain that would come with a young QB, what do you think the reasoning was to take that route instead of what you thought....a cheap bridge QB supplemented with a prospect?

 

Looks like you kinda answered it above....Nickster asked the same question.

[DougDew]

36 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Expensive is relative. Top QBs make $40M+/year now, the Colts would be paying Ryan $27m/year. 

 

They traded for him thinking they could compete with him. Of course they wanted to win now. My point is that they did not think his window would be this short.

 

They also didn't make corresponding roster decisions that would reflect a "win now" mentality. Instead, they relied on young, unproven players, at multiple positions. 

Seems like kind of a messed up cluster of an approach?

[Jackie Daytona]

On 10/25/2022 at 8:47 AM, OffensivelyPC said:

He's not on the way out.  He's made some mistakes, like not finding suitable long term replacements at LT, knowing Castanzo verbally was nearing retirement, missing on several DL, and I'm still out on whether he's addressed the WR position, although Alec Pierce seems to be coming along nicely and will be a good longer term answer, apparently economically wasting JT's best years cuz we probably don't sign him to a second contract.  Then of course there's the QB assembly line recycling older QBs.  

 

But I think Reich is not the QB whisperer we once thought of him before he arrived.  And I think he's more of the problem we're running into.  He abandons the run WAAY to early.  His challenges are often just throwing the red flag at critical moments hoping for the best wihtout any regard to how bad the challenge looks on film.  It feels like no matter how we look one week, we come out completely flat the next and look just unprepared and outcoached.

 

Luck retiring obviously kicked off the QB circus.  He got average at best production out of JB which that was probably all you could really expect, but by the time opponents figured out he rarely ever threw downfield, they started lining up in the box and JB still wouldn't push up the field and we finished the season like 2-7 or something and missed the playoffs.  Rivers was are best start to the season under Frank and while Rivers couldn't throw the ball nearly as far as he had in the past, he was still able to challenge coverage and we got put out by an up and coming Bills team in a close game.  Bummer, but that was the most acceptable season in the Ballard/Reich era after Luck.  Wentz and Ryan were obviously not getting it done.  But the slow starts have been a staple except the Rivers year.  Putting us in a massive hole to start the season off.  That's coaching.  

 

You can blame it on "oh new QB every year."  And part of that is true, but for 1 or 2 games games, maybe.  You cant start the season behind the 8 ball and go 1-4 like under Wentz or 1-2-1 under Ryan and say, "eh a couple of plays go our way and its a winning record.  Particularly after we've proven we can start off 5-2 (I think, under both JB and Rivers).  No, coming out unprepared is the bigger culprit and that's a Frank Reich problem.

They'll absolutely sign JT to a second deal or an extension.  He won't get a third one.

[Defjamz26]

17 hours ago, Shive said:

Fair interpretation that I didn't catch. Using hindsight, it's easier to justify giving up a ton of picks for either of those guys just because we know how they turned out, but it's such a gamble and neither of those guys were sure things in their draft classes.

So if even the guys who turn out to be stars are gamble, then you’ve basically admitted that one way or another you have to take a gamble. So why not gamble on a boom or bust guy? Missing on a franchise QB doesn’t set a team back years like people always say. Constantly missing on draft picks at premium positions and poor roster management sets a team back years. Might as well take a swing.

 

17 hours ago, Shive said:

What about the rest of the quote?

 

To your point, there is some luck involved. You have to have a guy that you think is your guy, have multiple dominoes ahead of you fall a very specific way, and you have to find a willing trade partner that will accept the compensation you're offering and is ok dropping down in the 1st round to when you're trading up from. Your willingness to give up more draft capital to move up is a component for sure, but how much you'll pay for the draft spot doesn't mean anything if everything above doesn't fall into place.

The rest of the quote? Like looking at the QBs the last 10 years? Honestly the whole idea of first round QBs busting is kind of overblown. It’s because it’s a QB that anytime they don’t work out people swear it’s a reach. If you took a look at OL, WRs, or the other positions that are constantly drafted early, you’d probably see similar bust rates. Just like GMs mis-evaluate every other position they also sometimes just mis-evaluate the QB position. The Titans definitely got the evaluation wrong on Corey Davis as did the Eagles with Reagor, and Carolina with Benjamin. I also said recently in another topic that a guy like Goff isn’t a bust. His career stats are solid and he’s still a starting QB in the league. 
 

Also in fairness, a lot of those QBs that truly busted had red flags all over them.  People can just get the evaluation wrong because they ignore the flags. It happens at every position. The same reason the Browns shouldn’t have drafted Johnny Manziel in the 1st round, is the same reason the Titans shouldn’t have drafted Isaiah Wilson in the 1st. 
 

None of those are reasons to put off drafting a QB for as long as the Colts have. You can’t see a 1st round QB not produce and just say “see that’s why you have to be careful with 1st round QBs”. It’s the same argument whenever people say you can’t take a RB in the first, except that argument has more merit based on positional value. The “right guy” or perfect fit ends up being a guy you have to move up for anyways. Sometimes you just have to make due with what you got. That’s what the Eagles have done. You think Hurts was the ideal fit? Nope. They bet on the intangibles and traits.

 

What also counters your argument is that most of the successful QBs in the league are 1st round picks. Rodgers (although he’s washed now), Mahomes, Watson before the massage stuff, Allen, Burrow, Tua, Stafford, and Herbert. And with the exception of Rodgers they were all top 10 picks actually. 
 

The good/great QBs drafted outside the 1st round? Wilson (may be washed), Dak, Carr, and Garropolo ? Leaving Brady out because we’ve all had the unicorn discussion about him to death. 
 

Edit: Forgot Kyler Murray as another success.

[Dobbinblitz]

2 hours ago, philba101 said:

Do we really want this? Also, how long does Ballard get to find out if the drafted QB is going to work? 2 years, 3 years? Maybe it can be blamed on the new coach at that point and Ballard can get two or three more years when he is replaced? Sounds like a cycle we should avoid altogether.

A primary issue with Ballard is when he got the job he was emphatic that he would build this team around the offensive and defensive lines. The one year the OL showed great promise was when DeGuglelmo coached the oline. 6 years latter we are in horrible shape on the OL. This was the core of his plan. He has often been too clever for his own good trying to turn low level free agents, late round picks, or UDFA's into viable alternatives for the OL. Will he over-analyze and reach on a QB selection with the highest R.A.S. - hard to tell.

[DynaMike]

I am all for drafting a QB if there is one available that the FO loves. However there are several in here making blanket statements about re-tread QB's not being able to work out. The last 2 super bowls were won with re-tread QB's. 

[Nickster]

39 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Seems like kind of a messed up cluster of an approach?

[stitches]

On 10/25/2022 at 11:04 PM, TaylorTheStudMuffin said:

Irsay would force Ballard to take a QB Ig he is still here unless Sam just lights it up.

If Irsay has to force Ballard to make any decision for this team, then maybe he should fire Ballard and hire a GM he trusts to do his job. 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

If the expensive vet QB route wasn't win now because their opinion that the roster is close......or simply an inability to tolerate the pain that would come with a young QB, what do you think the reasoning was to take that route instead of what you thought....a cheap bridge QB supplemented with a prospect?

 

Looks like you kinda answered it above....Nickster asked the same question.

 

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Seems like kind of a messed up cluster of an approach?

 

I think they had one foot on one path, and the other foot on another, and got undermined by their own indecisiveness (edit) and lack of foresight.

 

For example, Ballard might have been interested in a FA receiver, but didn't see the market going bonkers this offseason, and wasn't willing to play in those waters. I don't blame him for not paying $20m for a 30th rank WR, but the strategy he chose hurt the team in the first month of the season. And I say that as someone who likes Pierce, Woods, Pittman, and is surprised by Campbell so far. 

 

So you have what you expect to be an upgrade at QB, and his window is short (not 7 games, but still, he's not going to be around for long), and because you don't like the WR market, and you don't think Julio Jones can play (and he probably can't), you start the year with only one WR who has even come close to having a productive NFL season so far. Then when the offense is dead last after a month, you wonder what happened. 

 

Just one example, showing how they didn't commit to a "win now" approach, but also didn't commit to the youth experience.