Implosion

[Nickster]

Just now, Superman said:

 

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.

Well it's all speculation as you've said on both sides.  

 

All I can tell you is this doesn't seem (there it is again) like a move football people would make with a 500 team to go with a 6th rounder over a vet who had just thrown for almost 4 bills a week before. 

 

It seems like an impulsive, illogical decision and Irsay is a little goofy to say the least lol.

 

Maybe Chris and Frank hatched that master plan to save the season dude.  But yeah, probably not.

 

Water under the bridge though.   This org is a mess and I hope they get it figured out because it might be a while before Colt's football is fun to watch again. 

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

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.

 

He's always been in the room, since the Polian days. Now that we don't like the decisions, it's a problem?

 

To the bolded, that's a fair question. But in reality, we haven't had to make a lot of major in season decisions in the last 25 years, especially not at QB. The couple times we did, we have no idea whether Irsay was involved or not, but they were almost all injury related.

 

The optics are what they are, but I care a lot more about what actually happened, vs what people assume happened. 

[Superman]

Just now, Nickster said:

go with a 6th rounder over a vet who had just thrown for almost 4 bills a week before. 

 

Fair enough to the rest. Like I said, people are stating things as if they are fact, and I think it's important to challenge those statements because we don't know what actually happened.

 

To this part above, though, we know that's NOT what happened. Unless you're going to ignore the fact that Matt Ryan was legitimately injured.

[Nickster]

Just now, Superman said:

 

He's always been in the room, since the Polian days. Now that we don't like the decisions, it's a problem?

 

To the bolded, that's a fair question. But in reality, we haven't had to make a lot of major in season decisions in the last 25 years, especially not at QB. The couple times we did, we have no idea whether Irsay was involved or not, but they were almost all injury related.

 

The optics are what they are, but I care a lot more about what actually happened, vs what people assume happened. 

 

I did not realize that Jim was in the coach's room when they are discussing personnel decisions from week to week.  

 

Do other owners do that?  That seems like a bad work environment.  I would think most NFL owners know that the football decisions are best left to the football guys.   There have been notable exceptions like Jones and Davis, but those guys are usually not thought of highly.  Jones' team has been unremarkable since he pushed Johnson out and Davis did some weird stuff late in his life. 

 

The thing about Davis though is he actually was a football guy. 

[Nickster]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Fair enough to the rest. Like I said, people are stating things as if they are fact, and I think it's important to challenge those statements because we don't know what actually happened.

 

To this part above, though, we know that's NOT what happened. Unless you're going to ignore the fact that Matt Ryan was legitimately injured.

I am totally with you on challenging speculation and stat interpretation.  That to me is kinda the fun of the MB. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

I did not realize that Jim was in the coach's room when they are discussing personnel decisions from week to week.  

 

Do other owners do that?  That seems like a bad work environment.  I would think most NFL owners know that the football decisions are best left to the football guys.   There have been notable exceptions like Jones and Davis, but those guys are usually not thought of highly.  Jones' team has been unremarkable since he pushed Johnson out and Davis did some weird stuff late in his life. 

 

The thing about Davis though is he actually was a football guy. 

 

Kind of addressed already, but...

 

I doubt Irsay is in the room when they're shuffling the OL, or deciding how to split time between the veteran DB and the young guy. But if you're discussing a change at starting QB, maybe Irsay wants to be consulted first. More speculation, of course, but I think it makes sense to acknowledge that this is not a routine lineup decision.

[philba101]

1 hour 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.

 

 

I wonder what is true as well. I read a report when Ryan was benched that said the players were told by Ballard that the decision came from the top.  Of course we don't know this for sure but the reports made it sound like multiple angry players confirmed this.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Nickster said:

Collaborative with the guy that signs the checks.  Yep.  

From the article Sup linked:

 

“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.”

 

Irsay pushed back against the idea that Ryan was benched for the rest of the season, even though now-former head coach Frank Reich said on October 24 that Ehlinger would be the starter for the rest of the season. In other words, and contrary to Irsay’s latest words, Reich did indeed name Ehlinger the quarterback for the rest of the year.

 

“There was never a notion that you wouldn’t go to Nick [Foles] or Matt later in the season when [Ryan’s] shoulder is healthy,” Irsay now says. “They’re all available to help us win, bottom line. . . . It’s always been about whoever can help us win going forward. We’re going with Sam, and if there’s a notion for Jeff [Saturday] to make a change . . . that’s Jeff’s prerogative, and it was always Frank’s prerogative. 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.

 

So it sounds like Irsay in fact dictated the QB situation.  The HC wanted to name one QB the starter for the year, and the owner said No.  And gives a lot of football reasons as to why not...not social or business reasons.

 

That is a bad culture.   The players have no idea who is in charge of the daily decisions of running the club.  They don't know that if the HC says something or decides something, that it won't be over ruled by the owner.

 

Besides, Frank was probably right.  The vets sucked, and Sam might have been the best QB on the roster by now if he was allowed to start as much as Frank wanted.  So Irsay's football reasoning may have sucked as much as his decision to be decision maker.

 

Its not clever.... he denies mandating a move, but in the process admits to mandating a non move.

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

From the article Sup linked:

 

“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.”

 

Irsay pushed back against the idea that Ryan was benched for the rest of the season, even though now-former head coach Frank Reich said on October 24 that Ehlinger would be the starter for the rest of the season. In other words, and contrary to Irsay’s latest words, Reich did indeed name Ehlinger the quarterback for the rest of the year.

 

“There was never a notion that you wouldn’t go to Nick [Foles] or Matt later in the season when [Ryan’s] shoulder is healthy,” Irsay now says. “They’re all available to help us win, bottom line. . . . It’s always been about whoever can help us win going forward. We’re going with Sam, and if there’s a notion for Jeff [Saturday] to make a change . . . that’s Jeff’s prerogative, and it was always Frank’s prerogative. 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.

 

So it sounds like Irsay in fact dictated the QB situation.  The HC wanted to name one QB the starter for the year, and the owner said No.  And gives a lot of football reasons as to why not...not social or business reasons.

 

That is a bad culture.   The players have no idea who is in charge of the daily decisions of running the club.  They don't know that if the HC says something or decides something, that it won't be over ruled by the stammering old coot in the big mansion.

 

Besides, Frank was probably right.  The vets sucked, and Sam might have been the best QB on the roster by now if he was allowed to start as much as Frank wanted.  So Irsay's football reasoning may have sucked as much as his role playing decisions.

 

Wait a minute...

 

First, Irsay dictated that Ehlinger be the starter. And that was wrong because the owner should not be making these decisions, and why Ehlinger over Foles anyway? Evidence of dysfunction, clearly!

 

Now, Irsay dictated that Ehlinger not be the starter permanently, and that's wrong because the players now don't know who is making the decisions, and because Ryan and Foles sucked, and because Ehlinger probably would have gotten better by now, and that would have proved Reich right. Except I thought it was Irsay who forced Reich to start Ehlinger? So wouldn't that have proved Irsay right?

 

Set aside all the other conclusions that are being jumped to. This right here is some loopy logic, indeed.

 

And then there's the matter of the bolded portion above, which directly counters almost everything you've offered here.

[Myles]

59 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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.

Could Reich have just thought that Sam's mobility was needed in the offense after seeing Ryan back there.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Wait a minute...

 

First, Irsay dictated that Ehlinger be the starter. And that was wrong because the owner should not be making these decisions, and why Ehlinger over Foles anyway? Evidence of dysfunction, clearly!

 

Now, Irsay dictated that Ehlinger not be the starter permanently, and that's wrong because the players now don't know who is making the decisions, and because Ehlinger probably would have gotten better by now and that would have proved Reich right. Except I thought it was Irsay who forced Reich to start Ehlinger?

 

Set aside all the other conclusions that are being jumped to. This right here is some loopy logic, indeed.

 

And then there's the matter of the bolded portion above, which directly counters almost everything you've offered here.

What I have said is that the decision to bench Ryan and go with Sam was a collaborative decision.  I did not feel that Irsay dictated it.  Others may have said that, not me.  I figured that Reich suggested it because he saw that Ryan was a hindrance to the team, but had to clear it with the GM and the owner because the GM traded the capital and the owner pays Ryan's contract.   I believe that Frank wanted Sam after seeing Ryan's performance in the offense.

 

(As an aside, I always thought Frank's statement that Sam would be the starter even when Ryan's shoulder heals was an odd thing to say.  I chalked it up to him trying to give Sam confidence, so that he wouldn't be looking over his shoulder at Foles after every mistake.  But that Frank would in fact pull the plug on Sam if he was a real detriment, despite saying he was the QB for the rest of the year.)

 

The article seems to suggest that Frank did want Sam for the rest of the year, but Irsay overruled him.  I think that is overreach by an owner.  I think Frank wanted Sam because he thought Sam gave us the best chance to win, and to see him for evaluation. 

 

Irsay overriding that is not appropriate, IMO...(and a dumb FB decision to boot),

 

And I don't know what he's thinking.  He seems to be saying that he wants a QB by committee approach where any of the three QBs can start throughout the year.   Really, what team does that?  Who knows what he means.  Obviously if you have three QBs, there is a potential for all three to play at some point...injury being one reason.  So why point it out unless he was going to play all three for not obvious reasons.

 

Bottom line, is words and actions are not helpful in maintaining a proper culture, They are visible, ambiguous at best when not leaning towards contradictory, if not just weird, IMO.

 

[Jason_]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

What I have said is that the decision to bench Ryan and go with Sam was a collaborative decision.  I did not feel that Irsay dictated it.  Others may have said that, not me.  I figured that Reich suggested it because he saw that Ryan was a hindrance to the team, but had to clear it with the GM and the owner because the GM traded the capital and the owner pays Ryan's contract.   I believe that Frank wanted Sam after seeing Ryan's performance in the offense.

 

(As an aside, I always thought Frank's statement that Sam would be the starter even when Ryan's shoulder heals was an odd thing to say.  I chalked it up to him trying to give Sam confidence, so that he wouldn't be looking over his shoulder at Foles after every mistake.  But that Frank would in fact pull the plug on Sam if he was a real detriment, despite saying he was the QB for the rest of the year.)

 

The article seems to suggest that Frank did want Sam for the rest of the year, but Irsay overruled him.  I think that is overreach by an owner.  I think Frank wanted Sam because he thought Sam gave us the best chance to win, and to see him for evaluation. 

 

Irsay overriding that is not appropriate, IMO...(and a dumb FB decision to boot),

 

And I don't know what he's thinking.  He seems to be saying that he wants a QB by committee approach where any of the three QBs can start throughout the year.   Really, what team does that?  Who knows what he means.  Obviously if you have three QBs, there is a potential for all three to play at some point...injury being one reason.  So why point it out unless he was going to play all three for not obvious reasons.

 

Bottom line, is words and actions are not helpful in maintaining a proper culture, They are visible, ambiguous at best when not leaning towards contradictory, if not just weird, IMO.

 

 

Wowza...I think this is one of the most blatant examples of reading what you want to read in order to support a previously solidified opinion that I've ever seen on this forum.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

What I have said is that the decision to bench Ryan and go with Sam was a collaborative decision.  I did not feel that Irsay dictated it.  Others may have said that, not me.  I figured that Reich suggested it because he saw that Ryan was a hindrance to the team, but had to clear it with the GM and the owner because the GM traded the capital and the owner pays Ryan's contract.   I believe that Frank wanted Sam after seeing Ryan's performance in the offense.

 

(As an aside, I always thought Frank's statement that Sam would be the starter even when Ryan's shoulder heals was an odd thing to say.  I chalked it up to him trying to give Sam confidence, so that he wouldn't be looking over his shoulder at Foles after every mistake.  But that Frank would in fact pull the plug on Sam if he was a real detriment, despite saying he was the QB for the rest of the year.)

 

The article seems to suggest that Frank did want Sam for the rest of the year, but Irsay overruled him.  I think that is overreach by an owner.  I think Frank wanted Sam because he thought Sam gave us the best chance to win, and to see him for evaluation. 

 

Irsay overriding that is not appropriate, IMO...(and a dumb FB decision to boot),

 

And I don't know what he's thinking.  He seems to be saying that he wants a QB by committee approach where any of the three QBs can start throughout the year.   Really, what team does that?  Who knows what he means.  Obviously if you have three QBs, there is a potential for all three to play at some point...injury being one reason.  So why point it out unless he was going to play all three for not obvious reasons.

 

Bottom line, is words and actions are not helpful in maintaining a proper culture, They are visible, ambiguous at best when not leaning towards contradictory, if not just weird, IMO.

 

What I've been saying all along is that I don't know what might have happened, but I don't think there's any real confirmation that Irsay pushed Reich to go with Ehlinger.

 

I think we need to acknowledge Ryan's injury in all of this.

 

To the bolded, about Ehlinger being the starter the rest of the season... that's exactly what Reich said when he announced the change. So, did Irsay actually overrule Reich? Seems like he didn't, because if we take Irsay's words as true, he felt it wasn't necessary to make that determination. Yet, that determination was announced. So didn't it go the way Reich wanted, not Irsay? The overreach you're concluding happened doesn't seem to have happened at all.

 

The rest, I think, is just difference of opinion. Everyone has their own perspective on this. But I think most of these conclusions are just assumptions, and when scrutinized, many of them don't hold up.

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Wowza...I think this is one of the most blatant examples of reading what you want to read in order to support a previously solidified opinion that I've ever seen on this forum.

Big accusation with no reasoning to support it.  Please explain how you got to your opinion.

[chad72]

I have said all I felt I had to say. Peace!!! 

[DougDew]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What I've been saying all along is that I don't know what might have happened, but I don't think there's any real confirmation that Irsay pushed Reich to go with Ehlinger.

 

I think we need to acknowledge Ryan's injury in all of this.

 

To the bolded, about Ehlinger being the starter the rest of the season... that's exactly what Reich said when he announced the change. So, did Irsay actually overrule Reich? Seems like he didn't, because if we take Irsay's words as true, he felt it wasn't necessary to make that determination. Yet, that determination was announced. So didn't it go the way Reich wanted, not Irsay? The overreach you're concluding happened doesn't seem to have happened at all.

 

The rest, I think, is just difference of opinion. Everyone has their own perspective on this. But I think most of these conclusions are just assumptions, and when scrutinized, many of them don't hold up.

You and I agree.  Irsay did not push Reich into starting Sam.  I can't figure out what others are saying.  Most of it makes no sense.

 

It makes no sense for Irsay to have pushed Reich into starting Sam, unless you believe that tweet by a media-type suggesting that Irsay did it for money/injury reasons. 

 

I always thought the logical chain was for Frank to suggest to his bosses that Sam start because of the turds he was watching Ryan lay on the field every week.  They agreed.

 

The article you linked...I copied text above....says that Irsay told Reich that he should not name Sam the starter for the rest of the year though...after Reich told Irsay that's what he wanted to do.   Reich said it anyway at his presser.   

 

The point is that Irsay either wanted to or did overrule Frank in Frank wanting to have Sam be QB #1 the rest of the year, despite Frank coming to him and Ballard sincerely because he thought Sam provided the best chance to win.   I don't see why its appropriate for Irsay to push back on the decision his HC wants to make about the roster depth chart, when the HC would NOT be making that decision out of money reasons (owner might) or tanking reasons ( A GM might) but because of on-the-field football reasons of trying to win games (which is what it looks like to me).

[Btown_Colt]

2 hours 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.

Just quoting to say thanks, I’m not sure I had read this article or seen those quotes until now.

[SOMDColtsfan]

Irsay, Ballard, Reich..etc.They're all smarter than fan GM's. But when you see a guy like Pryor getting beat game after game, Blankenship costing game after game. Jelani Woods making big plays then just standing on the sidelines. Running Hines up the gut, screen plays out wide that have never worked with this offense..it does make me question the other more complicated decisions

[Superman]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

The article you linked...I copied text above....says that Irsay told Reich that he should not name Sam the starter for the rest of the year though...after Reich told Irsay that's what he wanted to do.   Reich said it anyway at his presser.   

 

The point is that Irsay either wanted to or did overrule Frank in Frank wanting to have Sam be QB #1 the rest of the year, despite Frank coming to him and Ballard sincerely because he thought Sam provided the best chance to win.   I don't see why its appropriate for Irsay to push back on the decision his HC wants to make

 

Here's my speculative offering: The braintrust is already considering getting Ehlinger some reps (indicated by the fact that he's promoted to QB2). Matt Ryan continues to play poorly, and gets injured. The decision is whether to start Ehlinger, or Foles. They go with Ehlinger. Reich says 'I think he should remain the starter the rest of the season, even if Ryan can play.' Irsay says 'why not just wait it out and see? But it's your call.' Reich announces Ryan is hurt, Ehlinger will start, and will remain the starter.

 

You're concluding that Irsay is trying to dictate the decision, as if there's a major disagreement, requiring "push back." I'm saying perhaps there was a simple exchange of ideas, which was usual procedure, and Reich was allowed to make the decision he felt was best. If we look at what happened and take Irsay's words at face value, he did NOT overrule Reich. If he was now meddling and influencing decisions that he should not be involved in, why didn't he?

 

Or maybe your next offering is that Reich ignored him, said Ehlinger would start the rest of the season despite Irsay's directive, and it got Reich fired... I think that would be another major stretch, for which there is no available evidence.

[DougDew]

36 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Here's my speculative offering: The braintrust is already considering getting Ehlinger some reps (indicated by the fact that he's promoted to QB2). Matt Ryan continues to play poorly, and gets injured. The decision is whether to start Ehlinger, or Foles. They go with Ehlinger. Reich says 'I think he should remain the starter the rest of the season, even if Ryan can play.' Irsay says 'why not just wait it out and see? But it's your call.' Reich announces Ryan is hurt, Ehlinger will start, and will remain the starter.

 

You're concluding that Irsay is trying to dictate the decision, as if there's a major disagreement, requiring "push back." I'm saying perhaps there was a simple exchange of ideas, which was usual procedure, and Reich was allowed to make the decision he felt was best. If we look at what happened and take Irsay's words at face value, he did NOT overrule Reich. If he was now meddling and influencing decisions that he should not be involved in, why didn't he?

 

Or maybe your next offering is that Reich ignored him, said Ehlinger would start the rest of the season despite Irsay's directive, and it got Reich fired... I think that would be another major stretch, for which there is no available evidence.

 

 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.

 

Irsay pushed back against the idea that Ryan was benched for the rest of the season, even though now-former head coach Frank Reich said on October 24 that Ehlinger would be the starter for the rest of the season. In other words, and contrary to Irsay’s latest words, Reich did indeed name Ehlinger the quarterback for the rest of the year.

 

There was never a notion that you wouldn’t go to Nick [Foles] or Matt later in the season when [Ryan’s] shoulder is healthy,” Irsay now says. “They’re all available to help us win, bottom line. . . . It’s always been about whoever can help us win going forward

 

There is some misinterpretation of Reich's words at the presser.  He said that they are going with Sam as the starter the rest of the season.   Obviously he simply means that Sam will be #1 on the depth chart  going forward even when Ryan is healthy.  

 

Nobody is locked into the trotting out a bad QB simply because he's #1, so there was never any locking into Sam for the rest of the season.  I mean, it goes without saying even 10 seconds after Frank said it that its not a lock.  I get that Irsay is trying to explain to Kravitz that Kravitz is misinterpreting what Reich said.  It also sounds to me that Irsay is telling Frank that he can't lock into Sam, even if Frank wanted to.  I don't think that's the owners place.

 

 

 

 

 

[Superman]

31 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

 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.

 

Irsay pushed back against the idea that Ryan was benched for the rest of the season, even though now-former head coach Frank Reich said on October 24 that Ehlinger would be the starter for the rest of the season. In other words, and contrary to Irsay’s latest words, Reich did indeed name Ehlinger the quarterback for the rest of the year.

 

There was never a notion that you wouldn’t go to Nick [Foles] or Matt later in the season when [Ryan’s] shoulder is healthy,” Irsay now says. “They’re all available to help us win, bottom line. . . . It’s always been about whoever can help us win going forward

 

There is some misinterpretation of Reich's words at the presser.  He said that they are going with Sam as the starter the rest of the season.   Obviously he simply means that Sam will be #1 on the depth chart  going forward even when Ryan is healthy.  

 

Nobody is locked into the trotting out a bad QB simply because he's #1, so there was never any locking into Sam for the rest of the season.  I mean, it goes without saying even 10 seconds after Frank said it that its not a lock.  I get that Irsay is trying to explain to Kravitz that Kravitz is misinterpreting what Reich said.  It also sounds to me that Irsay is telling Frank that he can't lock into Sam, even if Frank wanted to.  I don't think that's the owners place.

 

 

Irsay's comments to Kravitz were two weeks later, after Reich was fired and Saturday was introduced. Irsay isn't telling Kravitz that anyone misinterpreted Reich. He's saying that the idea that he dictated Ryan be benched is wrong, all three QBs were available, and Jeff Saturday would decide who would start moving forward.

 

And I don't think there's much room for interpretation. Reich said: "Right now the move is for Sam to be the starter for the rest of the season." Pretty black and white.

[DougDew]

46 minutes ago, Superman said:

And I don't think there's much room for interpretation. Reich said: "Right now the move is for Sam to be the starter for the rest of the season." Pretty black and white.

Yeah, but Kravitz screwed it up towards the dramatic

 

Irsay pushed back against the idea that Ryan was benched for the rest of the season,  even though now-former head coach Frank Reich said on October 24 that Ehlinger would be the starter for the rest of the season. In other words, and contrary to Irsay’s latest words, Reich did indeed name Ehlinger the quarterback for the rest of the year. 

 

There was this notion that Sam was going to be the QB the rest of the season regardless.  But that's not what Frank meant.  The "right now" lead in means that Sam is #1 on the depth chart going forward, and Ryan getting healthy won't change that.  Sam will have all of the normal opportunities to be demoted to #2 or #3, with extra rope allowed for bad performances to evaluate him.

 

Irsay is trying to clean up what Frank said about the rest of the season by explaining how the QB position is going to be handled.  But it does sound like he's telling Kravitz what he told Frank about it.  The telling Frank part is a little too close to the HC domain for my tastes.  

[DEColtsLover36]

4 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

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).

 

You sure about that?  jk

 

[Crunked]

I still dont understand WHY our O-line stunk (and still not good but at least being schemed to be passable) no pun intended.....and we haven't sniffed firing the O-line coach, but were ripping through all sorts of other people......Is this backward world or shouldnt the guy directly responsible for the performance of the line be the first guy to go? Just one of many curious happenings with this team this year, including releasing Odengbo today.......I can't say I understand the objective here, either some really weird bad juju is happening behind closed doors.....or someone is dippin into the smelling salts a little too heavy.....

[Moe]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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.

Serious question have you ever thought about becoming a lawyer?

[richard pallo]

24 minutes ago, Crunked said:

I still dont understand WHY our O-line stunk (and still not good but at least being schemed to be passable) no pun intended.....and we haven't sniffed firing the O-line coach, but were ripping through all sorts of other people......Is this backward world or shouldnt the guy directly responsible for the performance of the line be the first guy to go? Just one of many curious happenings with this team this year, including releasing Odengbo today.......I can't say I understand the objective here, either some really weird bad juju is happening behind closed doors.....or someone is dippin into the smelling salts a little too heavy.....

The way I am looking at the OL issues is the coaches coach the players they are given to work with.  Turnover happens.  We lost two players who finished last year as starters: Glowinski and Fisher and a good backup in Reed.  Other players also moved on.  Ballard brought in new players to take over as starters or potential starters.  Some of those moves did not work out.  Another seems promising.  Ballard thought Pryor could start at LT and Pinter at RG.  Two missed evaluations apparently.  It was like trying to put two square pegs into round holes.   The coaches had to move in another direction.  Raimann the rookie is now the LT and I would conclude he is receiving solid coaching which has improved and accelerated his development.  Fries also has been inserted and is an improvement over Pinter. Throw in the various injuries and you have a line in flux with the hard job of trying to get chemistry working as a unit.  So for me I’m not throwing the entire blame on the coaches.  Some time player movement can work and other times it becomes a work in process.  This year has been a long work in process.

[Timeout]

I'm not going to get into a lot of this. Irsay benched Ryan not Frank. Plus Ryan couldn't beat Commanders cause Ryan was injured..

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Moe said:

Serious question have you ever thought about becoming a lawyer?

 

LOL, not seriously. You are not the first person to ask me that, but it's been awhile.

 

35 minutes ago, Timeout said:

I'm not going to get into a lot of this. Irsay benched Ryan not Frank. Plus Ryan couldn't beat Commanders cause Ryan was injured..

 

I think there's basically zero available evidence to support your claim.

 

I do agree about Ryan not being available for the Commanders game, though.

[Timeout]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

LOL, not seriously. You are not the first person to ask me that, but it's been awhile.

 

 

I think there's basically zero available evidence to support your claim.

 

I do agree about Ryan not being available for the Commanders game, though.

Supe what backs any of your claims?? Everyone on here backs a opinion or some fluke media claim???

[Timeout]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

LOL, not seriously. You are not the first person to ask me that, but it's been awhile.

 

 

I think there's basically zero available evidence to support your claim.

 

I do agree about Ryan not being available for the Commanders game, though.

I can't announce my Colt source but he is reliable.. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Timeout said:

Supe what backs any of your claims?? Everyone on here backs a opinion or some fluke media claim???

 

You made a statement, as if it's definitive fact. The burden of proof is on you.

 

As for my viewpoint, I think it's well covered in previous posts in this thread, if you want to take a look.

[Timeout]

Supe I have read plenty of your posts and you are like a god on here. Just be a little more laid back and not so serious..

We all know you are a football guru.. stop being so serious and have fun

[Superman]

Just now, Timeout said:

Supe I have read plenty of your posts and you are like a god on here. Just be a little more laid back and not so serious..

We all know you are a football guru.. stop being so serious and have fun

 

Advice heard, thanks.

 

Still would like to see someone provide some evidence to support this claim that seems unfounded to me. I'm also fine with continuing to challenge people who state it as if it's confirmed fact.

[Timeout]

What facts you want to know? I may be able to provide.

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, Timeout said:

What facts you want to know? I may be able to provide.

 

"Irsay benched Ryan not Frank"

 

Prove it.

[Timeout]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

"Irsay benched Ryan not Frank"

 

Prove it.

working on it but it will be media what everyone says is false. Cant have true facts unless you actually on Colts payroll!!

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Timeout said:

working on it but it will be media what everyone says is false. Cant have true facts unless you actually on Colts payroll!!

 

I haven't seen anything that even claims to be sourced that says Irsay mandated benching Ryan, or playing Ehlinger. Only speculation.

 

Can't promise that I'd believe it, but it would be a start to offer something published that even offers an anonymous source saying that Irsay was behind either decision. 

[Timeout]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I haven't seen anything that even claims to be sourced that says Irsay mandated benching Ryan, or playing Ehlinger. Only speculation.

 

Can't promise that I'd believe it, but it would be a start to offer something published that even offers an anonymous source saying that Irsay was behind either decision. 

You got me Supe, I can't reveal sources... Lets carry on... lol

[Jason_]

11 hours ago, Timeout said:

You got me Supe, I can't reveal sources... Lets carry on... lol

 

Can't reveal what doesn't exist 

[Flash7]

15 hours ago, DEColtsLover36 said:

You sure about that?  jk

 

If we had to chart the progress of the team over the years on a graph, the graph would show a downward trend. We went from being an AFC South Champion and Super Bowl contender to a team that can't make the playoffs.  It's pretty obvious when you step back and take a look.