Implosion

[indyagent17]

With Tennessee falling apart each week it is quite possible a team under  500 could win this division. You look back at the Colts season and see all the lost chances that we had so many opportunities to correct the ship but no action was taken. Sure we fired Frank but there seems no accountability in the locker room. I know a few players are upset, but that’s not enough. Do you wish the veterans would call out lazy players on the field?  This division was ripe for the taking this year and this team and everything it could to make that not happen.

[chad72]

Forcing Reich and Ballard to bail on Wentz, forcing Reich to bench Ryan for Sam while we were 3-3-1, firing Reich 2 games later and forcing Saturday on Ballard, who do you think did all of that? All signs point to Irsay, IMO. He needs to step off his ledge and football results can't be corrected with knee jerk decisions. That is what I firmly believe.

[Jason_]

38 minutes ago, chad72 said:

forcing Reich to bench Ryan for Sam while we were 3-3-1

 

I don't buy this part 

[buccolts]

Franks offense was fine. 

He pushed for Rivers and it worked. He pushed for Wentz, and Wentz turned out to be a flake.

 

I'm not sure of his involvement in bringing in Ryan, but Ryan seemed to be a God send availability at the time, so why not. Then we find out Ryan is done, and it's obvious Frank's offense couldn't work with Ryan's diminished talents. Frank had to go, but Franks departure added to an apathy, disappointment, anger(?) in the locker room, as Frank was popular with them. 

 

Now you've got to run an offense that doesn't work, and you don't have an OC. Can't change the scheme much until you bring in a new OC and have an off season.

 

What an unfortunate season. And I'm not fond of the QB class coming out, right now.

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

I don't buy this part 

 

I'm still looking for some confirmation on that myself. 

[DougDew]

I don't know why limping into the playoffs as a sub .500 team would be much different than where we are now.  Just because the other teams would have collapsed more than we did doesn't really change anything about the Colts.

 

Reich specifically said about the benching of Ryan...that Irsay, Ballard, and Frank talked about it the night before and decided to bench him.  He also said that Sam was going to be the starter for the remainder of the season.  Reich would have to be flat out lying about that if he actually made that decision alone.

 

And if the Foles rumor is correct. Ryan is going to be benched anyway.  It just took a few weeks for the new guy to figure it out, understandably.

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, buccolts said:

I'm not sure of his involvement in bringing in Ryan, but Ryan seemed to be a God send availability at the time, so why not. Then we find out Ryan is done, and it's obvious Frank's offense couldn't work with Ryan's diminished talents.

Irsay had the jet warmed up for Winston.  Then Ryan becomes available.  For as little time as it took for the Colts to move off of Winston and actually secure the trade for Ryan  (a few hours), I doubt that there was much of a debate about it.  Not as if Frank was crying to Irsay and Ballard that he needed Ryan when they both still wanted Winston.  

[twfish]

17 minutes ago, buccolts said:

Franks offense was fine. 

He pushed for Rivers and it worked. He pushed for Wentz, and Wentz turned out to be a flake.

 

I'm not sure of his involvement in bringing in Ryan, but Ryan seemed to be a God send availability at the time, so why not. Then we find out Ryan is done, and it's obvious Frank's offense couldn't work with Ryan's diminished talents. Frank had to go, but Franks departure added to an apathy, disappointment, anger(?) in the locker room, as Frank was popular with them. 

 

Now you've got to run an offense that doesn't work, and you don't have an OC. Can't change the scheme much until you bring in a new OC and have an off season.

 

What an unfortunate season. And I'm not fond of the QB class coming out, right now.

I'll disagree, his offense lacked creativity and he basically telegraphed his plays to the DC. If he would have given up play calling last year he would still be here imho.

[Btown_Colt]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

Forcing Reich and Ballard to bail on Wentz, forcing Reich to bench Ryan for Sam while we were 3-3-1, firing Reich 2 games later and forcing Saturday on Ballard, who do you think did all of that? All signs point to Irsay, IMO. He needs to step off his ledge and football results can't be corrected with knee jerk decisions. That is what I firmly believe.

I’m pretty much in agreement with this.

 

I agree it initially seemed like the Ryan benching was, at least partially, forced upon Frank. Which made sense at the time.

 

But then Ryan became the starter again, which seems to contradict what was originally assumed.

 

I honestly don’t know where I land on this one yet.

 

 

[chad72]

4 minutes ago, Btown_Colt said:

I’m pretty much in agreement with this.

 

I agree it initially seemed like the Ryan benching was, at least partially, forced upon Frank. Which made sense at the time.

 

But then Ryan became the starter again, which seems to contradict what was originally assumed.

 

I honestly don’t know where I land on this one yet.

 

 

It came from a place of trust for Irsay, he had lost trust in Frank, temporary shot of adrenaline with Saturday that he trusted is what I attribute to. The original one was a knee jerk reaction to us being swept by the Titans.

[Jason_]

 

4 minutes ago, Btown_Colt said:

I’m pretty much in agreement with this.

 

I agree it initially seemed like the Ryan benching was, at least partially, forced upon Frank. Which made sense at the time.

 

But then Ryan became the starter again, which seems to contradict what was originally assumed.

 

I honestly don’t know where I land on this one yet.

 

 

 

This is why I think it went down a little bit differently than what the media was speculating.  I think Irsay was ready to fire Frank 2 weeks earlier, but Frank talked Irsay into letting him have a couple of weeks with Sam as the starter to see if that could ignite the team.  Irsay agreed but told Frank he'd be on a short leash.  After 2 weeks with no improvement, Frank was let go then Saturday was brought in and told he could start whomever he wanted.

 

That's how I think it went down.  

[buccolts]

40 minutes ago, twfish said:

I'll disagree, his offense lacked creativity and he basically telegraphed his plays to the DC. If he would have given up play calling last year he would still be here imho.

The scheme was fine.

It's the play calling, and abundance of going for it on 4th was a problem.

I'm not totally against going for it on 4th, but there were plenty of times we should have just taken the points.

[chad72]

17 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

 

This is why I think it went down a little bit differently than what the media was speculating.  I think Irsay was ready to fire Frank 2 weeks earlier, but Frank talked Irsay into letting him have a couple of weeks with Sam as the starter to see if that could ignite the team.  Irsay agreed but told Frank he'd be on a short leash.  After 2 weeks with no improvement, Frank was let go then Saturday was brought in and told he could start whomever he wanted.

 

That's how I think it went down.  

 

I can't seriously buy this. Let me explain.

 

Me, the owner has decided to fire you. I am going to extend it by 2 weeks on the heels of 2 games of starts from a guy with no NFL starts before when you couldn't get production out of a 14 year old vet. Me, the owner, should also know you, the HC are a slow starter based on past years and I would have to give more than just 2 games of Sam E to leave open the lifeline. Forget Luck and his 1-5 start, he wasn't benching Luck, the savior of our franchise then. When Carson was banged up and we had the 1-4 start, he didn't bench Carson. You seriously believe Frank would have benched Ryan? 

 

The only explanation is Irsay was * off that we got swept by the Titans, again, by a coach he had mad respect for and he told Frank to do "something" at the QB position while Frank was stuck with no serious upgrades coming for his roster, his previously somewhat reliable OL regressing and being a victim of him not walking away from his play calling that had become predictable. Until Frank was forced to play Sam, when did he ever have to sell "special sauce" of Sam before? Never is the answer. 

 

So it was a move dictated by Irsay to me.

[Jason_]

2 minutes ago, chad72 said:

So it was a move dictated by Irsay to me.

 

Agree to disagree.  I just simply don't buy that Irsay forced Frank to bench Ryan in favor of Sam, but then let Saturday go back to Ryan. 

[#12.]

We can argue about the details, but the less Irsay does the better.

 

People want Ballard gone.  I have no special love for Ballard, but in the end who do I trust more - Ballard to hire a coach and find a QB or Irsay to find a better GM than Ballard?

 

I'll take my chances with Ballard.

[Indy87]

4 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

I can't seriously buy this. Let me explain.

 

Me, the owner has decided to fire you. I am going to extend it by 2 weeks on the heels of 2 games of starts from a guy with no NFL starts before when you couldn't get production out of a 14 year old vet. Me, the owner, should also know you, the HC are a slow starter based on past years and I would have to give more than just 2 games of Sam E to leave open the lifeline. You seriously believe that? 

 

The only explanation is Irsay was * off that we got swept by the Titans, again, by a coach he had mad respect for and he told Frank to do "something" at the QB position while Frank was stuck with no serious upgrades coming for his roster, his previously somewhat reliable OL regressing and being a victim of him not walking away from his play calling that had become predictable. Until Frank was forced to play Sam, when did he ever have to sell "special sauce" of Sam before? Never is the answer.

 

So it was a move dictated by Irsay to me.

 

A man on the verge of being fired will do crazy things… Like change the starting online on a short week without practice. Ala: Denver Broncos Thursday night. So it isn’t out of the realm of possibility that Frank made that change. 

[masterlock]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

Forcing Reich and Ballard to bail on Wentz, forcing Reich to bench Ryan for Sam while we were 3-3-1, firing Reich 2 games later and forcing Saturday on Ballard, who do you think did all of that? All signs point to Irsay, IMO. He needs to step off his ledge and football results can't be corrected with knee jerk decisions. That is what I firmly believe.

There seems to be a narrative among some people that Irsay is a "meddlesome" owner, but his track record says otherwise. By his own account, he reserves the right to veto quarterback decisions (I wonder how many NFL owners DON'T). Considering the importance of the position, I can't say I blame him. It was obvious to me, and probably most people with an opinion on the matter, that Wentz wasn't the answer and never will be--too many left-handed desperation passes, erratic decisions, and fading when it counted the most. Moving on from Wentz? Bravo, Mr. Irsay!

 

And the firing of Reich? Can't say I blame him there either. Reich's teams demonstrated a pattern of unpreparedness over his 5-year tenure, as evidenced by the many opening-season losses and first quarter deficits. It's arguable whether he should've waited until the end of the season. (Would waiting until the season was over be any less meddlesome, and if so, why?)

 

And the benching of Ryan? Considering the atrocious blocking, and utter lack of mobility of Ryan, and the league-leading turnovers, I have to wonder what the alternative was? I guess he could've let things play-out. But I think there was a case to me made that a more mobile quarterback was better suited to the weaknesses of the o-line. 

[chad72]

Just now, Indy87 said:

 

A man on the verge of being fired will do crazy things… Like change the starting online on a short week without practice. Ala: Denver Broncos Thursday night. So it isn’t out of the realm of possibility that Frank made that change. 

 

That could be Frank giving Strausser the rope to try his combinations. Other teams do the same thing too, you know. Flacco, during his SB run with Jim Caldwell as OC, they made a MASSIVE shuffle in their O-line line up from the regular season when the playoffs started. All teams do it, man, to figure out their OL combinations till they get it right. Turns out that move to Raimann at LT was reinstated by Saturday too and Raimann has learnt in the line of fire. I am not even a huge Frank defender, go look up my record.

[DougDew]

22 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

It came from a place of trust for Irsay, he had lost trust in Frank, temporary shot of adrenaline with Saturday that he trusted is what I attribute to. The original one was a knee jerk reaction to us being swept by the Titans.

Yep.  Irsay flails about trying to find answers, starting last season with the demand of Wentz' departure.  He gets more involved as he loses confidence in the FO.  When Saturday is hired, he feels the air has been cleansed and starts him off with fresh capital to use as he wishes.   I assume for the rest of the season.

 

I would not use the words "Irsay forced" it on Frank, but he was on board.  It certainly was not a Frank decision by itself.

 

And if Frank concluded that Ryan was done and unhelpful to the team...and sold that to Irsay, it seems like his perception was not far off.  Maybe he knew a little more about Ryan at that point than this fan base does.

[chad72]

3 minutes ago, masterlock said:

There seems to be a narrative among some people that Irsay is a "meddlesome" owner, but his track record says otherwise. By his own account, he reserves the right to veto quarterback decisions (I wonder how many NFL owners DON'T). Considering the importance of the position, I can't say I blame him. It was obvious to me, and probably most people with an opinion on the matter, that Wentz wasn't the answer and never will be--too many left-handed desperation passes, erratic decisions, and fading when it counted the most. Moving on from Wentz? Bravo, Mr. Irsay!

 

And the firing of Reich? Can't say I blame him there either. Reich's teams demonstrated a pattern of unpreparedness over his 5-year tenure, as evidenced by the many opening-season losses and first quarter deficits. It's arguable whether he should've waited until the end of the season. (Would waiting until the season was over be any less meddlesome, and if so, why?)

 

And the benching of Ryan? Considering the atrocious blocking, and utter lack of mobility of Ryan, and the league-leading turnovers, I have to wonder what the alternative was? I guess he could've let things play-out. But I think there was a case to me made that a more mobile quarterback was better suited to the weaknesses of the o-line. 

 

We were winning alternate games till that move, being 3-3-1. Maybe continuity would have helped with the same QB and OL to get their protections right, continuity has its benefits. After 1-4, no benching of Carson and went on a streak, after 1-5 with Luck, no benching of Luck and went on a streak, 3-3-1 doesn't look that pathetic to me unless the decision was already made in Irsay's mind. This is truly the first season I have had a problem with Irsay, and like you said I agree his track record is not being meddlesome, but I can't ignore his role in all these happenings.

[Indy87]

1 minute ago, chad72 said:

 

That could be Frank giving Strausser the rope to try his combinations. Other teams do the same thing too, you know. Flacco, during his SB run with Jim Caldwell as OC, they made a MASSIVE shuffle in their O-line line up from the regular season when the playoffs started. All teams do it, man, to figure out their OL combinations till they get it right. Turns out that move to Raimann at LT was reinstated by Saturday too and Raimann has learnt in the line of fire. I am not even a huge Frank defender, go look up my record.

 

I didn’t think you were a Frank supporter perse, It just isn’t cut and dry either way and there is a level of speculation, and I wanted to throw in that there is a possibility that it was all Frank being desperate to save his job.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Irsay had the jet warmed up for Winston.  Then Ryan becomes available.  For as little time as it took for the Colts to move off of Winston and actually secure the trade for Ryan  (a few hours), I doubt that there was much of a debate about it.  Not as if Frank was crying to Irsay and Ballard that he needed Ryan when they both still wanted Winston.  

 

All that happened pretty quickly, but I'm pretty sure Winston decided he wanted to stay with the Saints before the Colts started working on the Ryan trade. I don't think the Colts moved off Winston as much as Winston moved off the Colts.

 

And either way, it's not all that relevant of a detail. The Ryan decision came in an offseason were there were few serious options at QB, which is why people were so surprised the Colts got rid of Wentz like they did, with no real backup plan in place. Even the draft wasn't enticing. The real questions are more about the previous two seasons, not 2022.

[Derakynn]

33 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

It came from a place of trust for Irsay, he had lost trust in Frank, temporary shot of adrenaline with Saturday that he trusted is what I attribute to. The original one was a knee jerk reaction to us being swept by the Titans.

Ignoring that you guys keep pushing this crazy theory with absolutely zero actual evidence, I think we've seen over the course of the entire season that benching Matt Ryan could not, under any circumstance, be labeled as a "knee jerk reaction". Dude is shot. It's over.

[Smonroe]

We can continue to rehash what might have been or we can look forward.  Maybe learn from mistakes that were made.

 

And obviously, by "we" I mean the Colts organization from the owner down.

 

The team isn't a dumpster fire, but it's not a championship team either.  No need to burn it down and start over (IMHO).

 

But the #1 task for Ballard should be finding a franchise QB for the future.  

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I'm still looking for some confirmation on that myself. 

We likely won’t ever know

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, chad72 said:

The only explanation is Irsay was * off that we got swept by the Titans, again, by a coach he had mad respect for and he told Frank to do "something" at the QB position while Frank was stuck with no serious upgrades coming for his roster, his previously somewhat reliable OL regressing and being a victim of him not walking away from his play calling that had become predictable. Until Frank was forced to play Sam, when did he ever have to sell "special sauce" of Sam before? Never is the answer. 

 

So it was a move dictated by Irsay to me.

 

If reputable reporting comes out that confirms Irsay wanted Reich to start Ehlinger, I'll be happy to accept it. Until then, this is all conjecture, IMO.

 

Colts bench Ryan, everyone assumes Irsay dictated it. The prevailing narratives at the time were either a) Irsay wants to tank (and that's weak, because the Colts were doing fine losing with Matt Ryan); or b) the Colts don't want to risk Ryan's injury guarantee kicking in for 2023 (and that doesn't hold up because we're still playing him now). Against all of this is the demonstrable fact that Matt Ryan was hurt -- he was clearly injured while trying to finish the Titans game -- didn't practice the next two weeks, and as soon as he did get back on the practice field, he got back in the lineup. So I always found the narratives flawed.

 

And why dictate that Ehlinger start? Why not Foles? Is there any reason why Irsay would heavily suggest that he wants to see Ehlinger take over at that point of the season, when we have a seasoned veteran with considerable experience sitting on the bench? There are a lot of missing pieces to this story.

 

My big problem is that this conclusion is all based on a bunch of assumptions, most of which didn't hold up logically to begin with. And now it's been two months that people are restating this conclusion as if it's established fact. It might be true; in a year in which Irsay has broken his own patterns in major ways, it wouldn't be the craziest thing to happen. It seems weak, though.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

We likely won’t ever know

 

I mean, Irsay basically said it wasn't true.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/11/09/jim-irsay-suggests-matt-ryan-could-play-again-this-year/

 

Quote

When [G.M.] Chris [Ballard], Frank and I decided to go with Sam [Ehlinger], Frank [Reich] wanted to name him quarterback for the year, but I told them, ‘Look, we have three quarterbacks; we need to use them all to win this year,” Irsay told Kravitz. “If we decide to make a change, we’ll make a change. It’s not something we’re locked into. We’re going with Sam with his mobility and his playmaking ability since we’re struggling in [pass] protection and moving the ball, that’s what we all decided to do.”

 

...

 

It’s wrong to say I mandated it [the move to Ehlinger] and it’s wrong to say they can’t go to the other guy.

 

It was clearly a collaborative decision, in which Irsay was involved. I think framing it as something Irsay was driving is a stretch, especially given the bolded quote above.

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

All that happened pretty quickly, but I'm pretty sure Winston decided he wanted to stay with the Saints before the Colts started working on the Ryan trade. I don't think the Colts moved off Winston as much as Winston moved off the Colts.

 

And either way, it's not all that relevant of a detail. The Ryan decision came in an offseason were there were few serious options at QB, which is why people were so surprised the Colts got rid of Wentz like they did, with no real backup plan in place. Even the draft wasn't enticing. The real questions are more about the previous two seasons, not 2022.

As quickly as the Colts moved on Ryan, I wonder how much due diligence they did on him.  Truly looked at his tape last season to see if he was done.  Or if they went a little more on reputation than they should have.

 

The band aid moves make sense as a first step.  These were vet starters with contracts that only really lasted two years.  What didn't make sense was to not use higher capital to draft a better college QB for the future.   The books on both Eason and Sam was that they were never going to be NFL starter QBs, outside of something shocking. 

 

I don't know what the options were to draft a QB with a higher ceiling, but in all of these years there was too much reliance on the idea that these vets would play at a high level for several years, so it seems they were never really serious about getting a young QB with a high ceiling to sit and learn behind them. 

[chad72]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It was clearly a collaborative decision, in which Irsay was involved. I think framing it as something Irsay was driving is a stretch, especially given the bolded quote above.

 

Fair enough. If it was a collaborative decision, why not give Frank more than 2 games of Sam E (with 1 of them coming against a HOF coach with a remarkable record against rookie QBs in Belichick) to show the QB change will work? The locker room was apparently lost with that decision, collaborative or not, is my first guess. I felt we had a puncher's chance against the Commanders with Ryan as QB but that is just me.

 

A season of lost opportunities and unanswered questions.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

As quickly as the Colts moved on Ryan, I wonder how much due diligence they did on him.  Truly looked at his tape last season to see if he was done.  Or if they went a little more on reputation than they should have.

 

The band aid moves make sense as a first step.  These were vet starters with contracts that only really lasted two years.  What didn't make sense was to not use higher capital to draft a better college QB for the future.   The books on both Eason and Sam was that they were never going to be NFL starter QBs, outside of something shocking. 

 

I don't know what the options were to draft a QB with a higher ceiling, but in all of these years there was too much reliance on the idea that these vets would play at a high level for several years, so it seems they were never really serious about getting a young QB with a high ceiling to sit and learn behind them. 

 

I don't think they spent enough time studying Ryan, personally. His collapse didn't happen overnight. I also don't think they coached very well during the offseason and the first part of the regular season, given the fact that we couldn't set protections or pick up blitzes for the first two months of the season. 

 

I think they expected more than a year from Rivers, and definitely more from Wentz. 

 

But to the bolded, what I wonder is whether the strategy was mostly pushed by Reich, and accepted by Irsay. And I think that question is relevant when people start saying stuff like "Ballard won't draft a QB" or "the Colts are probably going to find another veteran retread." I think it's telling that Reich was the main connection with Rivers and Wentz, and now he's gone, while Ballard is still here. But I don't think we'll have any great info to work from before the hiring season starts.

[coming on strong]

1 hour ago, buccolts said:

Franks offense was fine. 

He pushed for Rivers and it worked. He pushed for Wentz, and Wentz turned out to be a flake.

 

I'm not sure of his involvement in bringing in Ryan, but Ryan seemed to be a God send availability at the time, so why not. Then we find out Ryan is done, and it's obvious Frank's offense couldn't work with Ryan's diminished talents. Frank had to go, but Franks departure added to an apathy, disappointment, anger(?) in the locker room, as Frank was popular with them. 

 

Now you've got to run an offense that doesn't work, and you don't have an OC. Can't change the scheme much until you bring in a new OC and have an off season.

 

What an unfortunate season. And I'm not fond of the QB class coming out, right now.

I honestly think giving wentz another year in the offense would be better than trading for Matt . Wentz put up 27 touchdowns 7 picks . We missed the playoffs by one game . 
 

Wentz has like ten touchdowns this year and hasn’t played since October.  Matt has 14 now I believe we should have kept Wentz . 

I 100 percent believe we have a better record now with Wentz .  Wentz was mobile and had a good deep ball . This kept defenses honest . 
 

now I don’t think Wentz is a long term solution but he could of been a bridge Qb . Frank would still have a job if Wentz was here . 

 

[Nickster]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I mean, Irsay basically said it wasn't true.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/11/09/jim-irsay-suggests-matt-ryan-could-play-again-this-year/

 

 

It was clearly a collaborative decision, in which Irsay was involved. I think framing it as something Irsay was driving is a stretch, especially given the bolded quote above.

Collaborative with the guy that signs the checks.  Yep.  

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Fair enough. If it was a collaborative decision, why not give Frank more than 2 games of Sam E (with 1 of them coming against a HOF coach with a remarkable record against rookie QBs in Belichick) to show the QB change will work? The locker room was apparently lost with that decision, collaborative or not, is my first guess. I felt we had a puncher's chance against the Commanders with Ryan as QB but that is just me.

 

A season of lost opportunities and unanswered questions.

 

I was surprised by the midseason firing, but I don't disagree with it. I think it was clear that Reich wasn't working, he needed to go, and I felt the sooner the better. (I wouldn't have brought in an outsider as interim, but there might be more to that than meets the eye.)

 

As for Ryan, let's not forget that he was legitimately injured. He couldn't have played the Commanders game. Watching the Titans game, we could see that he was hurt. We had a puncher's chance with Ehlinger in that game; it took an amazing play from McLaurin for us to lose. But once Ryan could practice, he got his spot back. It helps that Reich was gone.

[chad72]

7 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Collaborative with the guy that signs the checks.  Yep.  

 

I thought the same too. Speak up if you disagree with me. 

 

Heck no, why bite the hand that feeds me?  

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Collaborative with the guy that signs the checks.  Yep.  

 

Isn't the implication that it's not a true collaboration if Irsay is in the room? 

 

If so, I think that's overly cynical.

[DougDew]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

But to the bolded, what I wonder is whether the strategy was mostly pushed by Reich, and accepted by Irsay. And I think that question is relevant when people start saying stuff like "Ballard won't draft a QB" or "the Colts are probably going to find another veteran retread." I think it's telling that Reich was the main connection with Rivers and Wentz, and now he's gone, while Ballard is still here. But I don't think we'll have any great info to work from before the hiring season starts.

A young QB behind a vet is a medium to long term strategy.  I don't think there is any way that a HC is going to effectively sell his version of medium to long term roster strategy to the GM or the owner.  If that's the case, the FO is dysfunctional, IMO.  Frank is not Bill Parcells or BB.  Frank can pound his fist demanding that the GM give him a recurring string of vet QBs (and I doubt he said that), but a GM listening to that strategy and giving that HC what he wants contradicting his own better judgement is just bad General Managing. 

 

If I were an owner,  I would expect a HC to ask the GM for a lot of good players right now.  I'd expect to see the GM have to pull the reigns his HC rather than striking him with a whip when it comes to advising him about roster strategy. The GM has to sort it out and make those decisions.  The roster is the GMs responsibility, especially measured over more than 3 years.

 

If you believe that Irsay did in fact meddle with each and every one of these decisions that is rumored to have happened, then firing Frank would sort of be scapegoating Frank after Irsay realizes his meddling sucked.  Not saying that's the case, but it flows if you make that first assumption.

 

I think it all looks like the FO flailing about trying to get things right.  Then Irsay fires Frank and the dust settles with Irsay now fully retreating to his office for the rest of the season.

 

 

[chad72]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Isn't the implication that it's not a true collaboration if Irsay is in the room? 

 

If so, I think that's overly cynical.

 

Nope, if you want to stay out of football decisions and truly leave it to the others for in season decisions, Irsay should not be in the room. He has every right to be in the room as owner, no doubt but if he is to be free from meddling accusations, he should just let Reich and Ballard handle it. Fair or not, the optics is not good.

[Nickster]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Isn't the implication that it's not a true collaboration if Irsay is in the room? 

 

If so, I think that's overly cynical.

 

Well you are right that this is speculation I guess technically that Irsay had heavy hand in this decision.

 

But to me Supe, it's hard for me to imagine that Frank would have gone with Sam over Nick.  That seems implausible.  And that Frank and Chris are sitting around saying.  Yep ole Sammy is going to bring us back to good.  Let's skip Nick Foles entirely. 

 

It seems pretty clear to me from Irsay's own words that he was the man behind this strange curtain.  Could be wrong.

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

A young QB behind a vet is a medium to long term strategy.  I don't think there is any way that a HC is going to effectively sell medium to long term roster strategy to the GM or the owner.  If that's the case, the FO is dysfunctional, IMO.  Frank is not Bill Parcells or BB.  Frank can pound his fist demanding that the GM give him a recurring string of vet QBs (and I doubt he said that), but a GM listening to that strategy is just bad General Managing. 

 

If I were an owner,  I would expect a HC to ask the GM for a lot of good players right now.  I'd expect to see the GM pull the reigns his HC than to strike him with a whip when it comes to advising him about roster strategy. The GM has to make those decisions.  The roster is the GMs responsibility, especially measured over more than 3 years.

 

If you believe that Irsay did in fact meddle with each and every one of these decisions that is rumored to have happened, then firing Frank would sort of be scapegoating Frank after Irsay realizes his meddling sucked.  Not saying that's the case, but it flows if you make that first assumption.

 

You're making a lot of assumptions, most of which I don't agree with, and they're leading to conclusions that I don't find convincing. So it doesn't make sense to me to respond to a lot of this, and I'd say that it does not flow, IMO.

 

I'll just say that this idea of the way a front office should work, how decision makers collaborate, and who makes the final decisions, seems overly absolute IMO. To the bolded, what you call "meddling" could very well be standard procedure, especially for major decisions. I would say firing Frank could be an admission by Irsay that Ballard was right about the QB strategy all along; not only was Frank's preferred approach flawed, but his ability to coach up some of these QBs was overstated. (That's obviously very speculative. Not offering it as a fact, just a counter to all the other speculation being thrown around.)

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

Well you are right that this is speculation I guess technically that Irsay had heavy hand in this decision.

 

But to me Supe, it's hard for me to imagine that Frank would have gone with Sam over Nick.  That seems implausible.  And that Frank and Chris are sitting around saying.  Yep ole Sammy is going to bring us back to good.  Let's skip Nick Foles entirely. 

 

It seems pretty clear to me from Irsay's own words that he was the man behind this strange curtain.  Could be wrong.

 

Okay, you see it as an illogical decision. So why is that being attributed to Irsay? Why would he be the one saying 'let's play the 2nd year guy who hasn't done anything yet'? 

 

I agree that it didn't make a lot of sense to go with Ehlinger at the time. But why couldn't that have been Reich, or Ballard, making that less than sensible decision? 

 

"It's hard for me to imagine" isn't a line of evidence that inspires any confidence in me. What it seems like is everyone decided right away -- on specious grounds -- that Irsay pushed the Ryan benching and the Ehlinger promotion. And now it's been stated as fact, so we have to try to prove beyond a doubt that that's not actually what happpened. 

 

Truth is we don't really know. We know what Reich said, what Irsay said, and what happened as soon as Reich left.