The Athletic: Colts disarray, Irsay "a one man crew"

[RollerColt]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Yeah.  I think two games under the circumstances Sam was thrown into isn't a good evaluation period...its why Frank said it would be the entire season.  I think Marcus Brady was fired around that time too by somebody, putting Sam in a real difficult situation.

 

Irsay must have had enough after the NE game......takes losing to BB personally after all of these years?

I think losing in such embarrassing fashion to Robert Kraft was the final straw in a long line of embarrassing setbacks. 

 

-2021 season finale blowout loss to Jags

-2022 season opener tie with the already anticipated worst team in the league Texans

-blowout loss to the Jags yet again in what was supposed to be a revenge game

-near back to back sweep by the Titans

-last minute loss to  the "most hated man in NFL Dan Snyder" Commanders

-blowout, utter destruction loss to the Robert Kraft Patriots

 

It was too much for him to take probably. That's a lot of not just losing, but absolute franchise gutting losing. 

[philba101]

38 minutes ago, philba101 said:

You make some really good points here. As annoyed as we all are that Irsay intervened or felt the need to intervene, the fact that he did it shows he was not pleased by the results he was getting from his coach (which he fired), and apparently his GM who as you stated didn't act if he recognized all of these things as well. Ballard in my eyes bears just as much blame as Reich and Irsay for all of the chaos this year. Yet, we haven't hardly heard anything from Ballard about this. Another puzzling aspect about Irsay is he keeps publicly saying how pleased he is with Ballard and how he expects him to be back in 2023. Why would he be pleased with a GM as was aptly stated above when he has failed at key parts of his job. Failed so much that the owner had to step in and force action. This is why I worry about Irsay moving forward. I would not question his loyalty or love for the team, but his irrational decisions are puzzling to say the least.

This is supposed to say Irsay "moving forward"

[DynaMike]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

@DougDew @Nickster and so many of us were calling it. There is your proof...

 

Apologies if I've missed something, as I don't have access to the article, but... Is there really any actual proof? From the excerpts I've read it seems to be just more hearsay, musings, & anonymous statements. Was there even 1 single person stating anything on the record? Or perhaps some other type of evidence? Or was it just someone claiming to have some anonymous inside information?

Again I did not read the article as I don't have access; please correct me if there is any actual evidence to support the claims.

Furthermore I am NOT claiming the opposite, just trying to listen to actual facts instead of opinions. 

Cheers!

 

[Superman]

29 minutes ago, stitches said:

Agreed on this. 

The Ballard thing is really interesting. I wonder if Ballard actually wants this job right now? Like... you can argue there have been 4 huge decisions for this team that are in his purview in the last year or so. And he's made NONE of them. Irsay has made ALL the most important decisions for this team in the last year - moving on from Wentz, firing Frank, benching Ryan, hiring Saturday.

 

To me it feels like Irsay doesn't trust Ballard. In a weird way there are very similar indications that Irsay has been prodding Ballard and guiding him towards what he thinks is right and he's finally given up and is deciding "he doesn't get it, I will have to make those decision". But at the same time publicly he's shown much more support for Ballard than for Reich. 

 

I don't know how Ballard continues in this situation. If Irsay picks the next coach, how is Ballard going to take that? What about the QB... lets say Irsay loves Levis(who seems to have the Peyton Manning seal of approval, BTW), but Ballard likes Stroud. Who makes that decision? IMO the worst case scenario is Irsay doesn't trust Ballard but keeps him and keeps meddling. 

 

Or is Ballard a goner and Irsay is just waiting for the season to end? I have no idea. 

 

Not predicting anything, as I think the signs are contradictory at this point.

 

But I don't see Ballard and Irsay as having been at odds. Take the Reich firing and Saturday hire as a main disagreement, for sure, but I don't know if we can say that Ballard wasn't on board with moving on from Reich. If Irsay told Ballard 'look, the Saturday thing is a long shot, and we're going to conduct a full search in the offseason,' then it really just comes down to the short term optics. I personally don't care too much about the way it looks; I know it wasn't working and I support making a change.

 

I think Ballard could be vindicated about the QB situation all along. I think some of the biggest issues on this roster are with player development: it shouldn't be hard to find a replacement for Autry, or for Glowinski. Those are replacement level players, and we have guys on the roster who have been groomed to replace them. Same thing with the way we've deployed WRs.

 

And I've stayed away from the OL coach thing, but Ballard was involved in the Guglielmo firing, and then Reich brought in his guy. I don't think it's a strong argument, because the OL was great in 2019 and 2020, but the inability to evaluate and develop younger players is now biting us in the butt. If Strausser is a key factor in choosing Fisher over Leno, or in promoting Pryor -- and I'm not saying he was, just outlining how the possibility might have influenced decision making -- then maybe they track some of the OL deficiency back to Reich's staff decisions.

 

Long story short, I think you're presenting a picture where Ballard is getting overruled lately, and maybe what's happening is Ballard's viewpoints have been validated lately -- at QB, coaching staff, player evaluation, etc. And maybe Irsay's hard pivot has come with an acknowledgment that they should have done it Ballard's way all along. This is all conjecture, but there's a lot we don't know. I'm just offering an alternative viewpoint.

 

I think we all agree, Irsay's increased involvement over the last 12 months is not ideal. But if -- IF -- it's all been about finding out where the cracks were and fixing them, then maybe he'll be done once the new HC is hired.

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

I think losing in such embarrassing fashion to Robert Kraft was the final straw in a long line of embarrassing setbacks. 

 

-2021 season finale blowout loss to Jags

-2022 season opener tie with the already anticipated worst team in the league Texans

-blowout loss to the Jags yet again in what was supposed to be a revenge game

-near back to back sweep by the Titans

-last minute loss to  the "most hated man in NFL Dan Snyder" Commanders

-blowout, utter destruction loss to the Robert Kraft Patriots

 

It was too much for him to take probably. That's a lot of not just losing, but absolute franchise gutting losing. 

And now what is the next step after the team has played even more embarrassingly post-Frank? 

 

Has the steam stopped coming out of his ears yet, or will anger drive him to fire Ballard?     

[NewColtsFan]

42 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You don't understand wanting Ryan benched after that Denver game? I thought Reich might have been fired after that game, if not for us pulling out a win. 

Honestly?    No.  
 

I thought the number one problem by far was the offensive line.   Still think that.  And I blamed Ballard and the OL coaches.  
 

Now I think Frank had a very poor staff around him and have felt that for two years.   But I didn’t see him getting fired until the bye week to give a new coach and new QB time to get ready.  
 

But Frank has started two different teams  (18 & 21) 1 & 4 only to bring them all the way to the playoffs in 18 and an 8-2 streak in 21 which had the Colts knocking on the playoff door.  I attributed the lousy finish to Covid to most of the key players including Wentz and many on the OL.  So I thought Frank had earned the chance to right the ship since he’d already done that before. 
 

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, DynaMike said:

 

Apologies if I've missed something, as I don't have access to the article, but... Is there really any actual proof? From the excerpts I've read it seems to be just more hearsay, musings, & anonymous statements. Was there even 1 single person stating anything on the record? Or perhaps some other type of evidence? Or was it just someone claiming to have some anonymous inside information?

Again I did not read the article as I don't have access; please correct me if there is any actual evidence to support the claims.

Furthermore I am NOT claiming the opposite, just trying to listen to actual facts instead of opinions. 

Cheers!

 

Yeah, I took the OPs lead when he said that he wasn't going to question it further, and neither did I. 

 

But no, I don't think there was anything more substantiated than what has already been "reported".  And some of this stuff could have been gathered via interviews and comments after the facts that might not tell the entire truth. 

 

I don't have access to the paywall, so maybe there are more direct reporting or quotes given that have gone unreported that are not part of OPs copy.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, DynaMike said:

 

Apologies if I've missed something, as I don't have access to the article, but... Is there really any actual proof? From the excerpts I've read it seems to be just more hearsay, musings, & anonymous statements. Was there even 1 single person stating anything on the record? Or perhaps some other type of evidence? Or was it just someone claiming to have some anonymous inside information?

Again I did not read the article as I don't have access; please correct me if there is any actual evidence to support the claims.

Furthermore I am NOT claiming the opposite, just trying to listen to actual facts instead of opinions. 

Cheers!

 

 

These are legitimate questions, IMO. For me, a person who previously questioned this idea due to the lack of reporting, the strongest line of evidence in this article is Reich's words. In the context of the Ryan benching and Ehlinger promotion in Week 8, Reich is quoted as saying Irsay was "a one man show." In other words, he was confirming that these decisions were made at Irsay's insistence.

 

So, for me, I'm dropping my objections to this particular element of the story. I think this is legitimate, sourced reporting, providing evidence that Irsay was the driving force behind the Ryan/Ehlinger decision at that time. 

[stitches]

51 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You don't understand wanting Ryan benched after that Denver game? I thought Reich might have been fired after that game, if not for us pulling out a win. 

That game was HORRIBLE. We had no business winning that game. Neither Ryan, nor Reich should take any credit for that win. This was just terrible. We won several games like this. In reality we probably should be a 2 win team, based on the level of play. I thought the record of the team while Frank was still HC was severely inflated based on 2 wins we had no business winning. Both the Chiefs and the Broncos wins were horrible and we deserved to lose both those games.  

[PRnum1]

Reich should have been fired for the Wentz fiasco.

 

For those not keeping up, Wentz was benched again after throwing 3 picks in his last game.

 

I realize that Ryan is a pariah on this board, but the Ryan experiment would have worked if he had at least a 15-20th ranked oline.

 

We tried 3 different quarterbacks and not one has excelled, even the mobile one.

[RollerColt]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

And now what is the next step after the team has played even more embarrassingly post-Frank? 

 

Has the steam stopped coming out of his ears yet, or will anger drive him to fire Ballard?     

I have honestly no clue what happens now. I wouldn't be surprised if tomorrow morning I wake up with my head sown to the carpet with how things have been going lately. 

[philba101]

18 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

While no one knows what the future holds and saying I expect leaves it open ended. He is trying not to offend Michigan while looking at nfl jobs.

I read that part too, but he did state again that he intends to return to Michigan in 2023. Maybe he gets blown away by an offer from an NFL team and jumps at it. If we take him at his word, his stated intention is to return to Michigan.

[philba101]

18 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

harbaugh cant fix this team unless he is given full control to pick players, he cant fix it with ballards bargain bin talent

I agree, that is why I don't think Ballard or Saturday for that matter should be making decisions for the Colts in 2023.

[DougDew]

14 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

Reich should have been fired for the Wentz fiasco.

 

For those not keeping up, Wentz was benched again after throwing 3 picks in his last game.

Wentz was 27/7 here with less talent than WAS.   So relative to Pedersen and Rivera, Frank did indeed "fix" Wentz when he was here, but obviously not well enough.

 

The article implied that the Wentz trade kept the Colts from drafting their own QB.  That would have been trading up to at least 11 for Fields or 14 for Mac Jones.  

 

Having Wentz instead of either of those two is hardly that big of a difference, IMO.  Is that what Irsay is beefed about....missing out on those guys?

 

The first round pick in 2022 maybe could have been Kenny Pickett.  No other QBs were first round worthy.  We still could have drafted Malik Willis, Sam Howell, etc.  

 

I'm not questioning the article when it says that's why Irsay fired Frank (for the most part), I just think its a nonsense reason to fire the HC, all things considered.

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Honestly?    No.  
 

I thought the number one problem by far was the offensive line.   Still think that.  And I blamed Ballard and the OL coaches.  
 

Now I think Frank had a very poor staff around him and have felt that for two years.   But I didn’t see him getting fired until the bye week to give a new coach and new QB time to get ready.  
 

But Frank has started two different teams  (18 & 21) 1 & 4 only to bring them all the way to the playoffs in 18 and an 8-2 streak in 21 which had the Colts knocking on the playoff door.  I attributed the lousy finish to Covid to most of the key players including Wentz and many on the OL.  So I thought Frank had earned the chance to right the ship since he’d already done that before. 

 

Do you mind acknowledging that I, personally, am not a 'fire the coach' kind of person? I mean, you know that about me, right? You've been here more than ten years, you know how I am.

 

While watching the Denver game, I felt like Reich would be fired if the offense didn't score some points, and if we lost. It was a Thursday game, we'd have a long week to adjust, and the bye week was still a month away. I think it's significant that I, of all people, felt that way. Not only that he should be fired, but that he would be fired. Because not only am I not a 'fire the coach" kind of guy, but Irsay is not a 'fire the coach during the season' kind of owner.

 

And like I said earlier, I started really side-eyeing Reich after the end of last season. And by Week 2 -- we got shut out in Jacksonville, after all the awareness of that matchup and its significance, and we don't even score a point?? -- I was ready for Reich to go. The idea of letting him right the ship was not interesting to me.

[NorthernColt]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Wentz was 27-7 here.   So relative to Pedersen and Rivera, Frank did indeed "fix Wentz" when he was here.

 

The article implied that the Wentz trade kept the Colts from drifting their own.  hat would have been trading up to at least 11 for Fields or 14 for mac Jones.  

 

Having Wentz instead of either of those two is hardly that big of a difference.

 

I'm not questioning the article when it says that's why Irsay fired Frank (for the most part), I just think its a nonsense reason to fire the HC, all things considered.

 

Well from the article, it doesn't seem like it was the sole reason, but just a big one. Which I can't disagree with. To say you're not in a better spot with having Fields or Jones instead of Wentz is a bit disingenuous. Jones and Fields aren't exactly elite Qbs yet no doubt, but its their 2nd year in the league. Wentz just had his 3RD TEAM give up on him. So, I'm not sure how you see that differently.

 

But if a coach stopped you from drafting your future qb (Ballard was rumored to like Fields alot), and have it blow up in your face, I agree with the firing.

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Has the steam stopped coming out of his ears yet, or will anger drive him to fire Ballard?     

 

I think this is where we differ. You're attributing Irsay's decisions to him being angry. I'm thinking he's made well considered, justifiable decisions, even if I don't necessarily agree with his methods lately.

[DynaMike]

Just now, Superman said:

... I think this is legitimate, sourced reporting, providing evidence...

Thanks. What is the source? Or is it anonymous? And what is the evidence? 

 

Again,  I'm not advocating otherwise,  just wanting solid information before coming to any conclusions. 

Thanks again! 

[IinD]

5 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

It was too much for him to take probably. That's a lot of not just losing, but absolute franchise gutting losing. 

That's why I think he 'meddled' like others are calling it. In the end it's still HIS team and he rightly so is/was *.

 

This wasn't a regular bad season every team has, this was epic proportions, record setting, multiple humiliating headline losses.

 

Hopefully things get back to normal around here soon, but I can't completely fault someone for seeing his baby falling apart and trying to save it from further damage.

[Superman]

Just now, DynaMike said:

Thanks. What is the source? Or is it anonymous? And what is the evidence? 

 

Again,  I'm not advocating otherwise,  just wanting solid information before coming to any conclusions. 

Thanks again! 

 

The reporter quotes Reich directly. Assuming no one calls this quote a lie, I'm fine with accepting it.

[stitches]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Not predicting anything, as I think the signs are contradictory at this point.

 

But I don't see Ballard and Irsay as having been at odds. Take the Reich firing and Saturday hire as a main disagreement, for sure, but I don't know if we can say that Ballard wasn't on board with moving on from Reich. If Irsay told Ballard 'look, the Saturday thing is a long shot, and we're going to conduct a full search in the offseason,' then it really just comes down to the short term optics. I personally don't care too much about the way it looks; I know it wasn't working and I support making a change.

 

I think Ballard could be vindicated about the QB situation all along. I think some of the biggest issues on this roster are with player development: it shouldn't be hard to find a replacement for Autry, or for Glowinski. Those are replacement level players, and we have guys on the roster who have been groomed to replace them. Same thing with the way we've deployed WRs.

 

And I've stayed away from the OL coach thing, but Ballard was involved in the Guglielmo firing, and then Reich brought in his guy. I don't think it's a strong argument, because the OL was great in 2019 and 2020, but the inability to evaluate and develop younger players is now biting us in the butt. If Strausser is a key factor in choosing Fisher over Leno, or in promoting Pryor -- and I'm not saying he was, just outlining how the possibility might have influenced decision making -- then maybe they track some of the OL deficiency back to Reich's staff decisions.

 

Long story short, I think you're presenting a picture where Ballard is getting overruled lately, and maybe what's happening is Ballard's viewpoints have been validated lately -- at QB, coaching staff, player evaluation, etc. And maybe Irsay's hard pivot has come with an acknowledgment that they should have done it Ballard's way all along. This is all conjecture, but there's a lot we don't know. I'm just offering an alternative viewpoint.

 

I think we all agree, Irsay's increased involvement over the last 12 months is not ideal. But if -- IF -- it's all been about finding out where the cracks were and fixing them, then maybe he'll be done once the new HC is hired.

I think a lot of this really wishful thinking and washing of Ballards' hands off most of his sins. I think he needs to bear responsibility for his decisions. Even if his decisions are influenced by his HC. It's still his job to have the final say on those decision. Ignoring LT was his decision for years. The bad DL-picks are his decision. I understand the offensive HC might have outsized influence on the QB position, but overall strategy is still his decision. I said when we got Rivers that I only like this decision if it's accompanied with us getting our QB of the future in that draft. He chose Buckner instead. Same goes for the following year... people wanted us to go get a QB in a strong QB class... he let Reich pick Wentz... AND gave up a ton for him. Every single year after Luck retired the go to move should have been - find a QB in the draft. He never did it. The FA strategy is still his decision. The emphasis on building from inside out is still his decision! 

 

I think a lot of your post is conjecture that we have no idea about... and not just that ... even if I grant you all of those assumptions and conjectures - it's still his job! You are making him look like an innocent bystander to his own decisions. If SO MUCH of his decisions is not really dependent on him, then what is he needed for? Hire a HC, let him pick his staff, let the staff pick their players, let the OC pick his QB path... 

 

Just... I think Ballard must bear the ultimate responsibility for the roster construction and personnel hires of this team. If he over-trusts his HC and OL-coaches... this is still on him if those decisions lead to bad OL play, bad talent development, bad QB play. etc. 

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think this is where we differ. You're attributing Irsay's decisions to him being angry. I'm thinking he's made well considered, justifiable decisions, even if I don't necessarily agree with his methods lately.

We were talking about the "embarrassing" losses.

 

Wanting Sam to start and Frank saying it was the rest of the season, the switch to Sam at the time seems well considered.  Truncating the plans after losing only two games (to Snyder, Kraft/BB) seems a bit more hot headed. 

 

I'm more in the level headed camp, but I do think he is frustrated and is floundering to figure out where his team stands.  Other owners/GMs of non playoff teams seem to have a better perception about who they are as a team.

[Nickster]

2 hours ago, Indyfan4life said:

Remember when we were the stable organization and there was zero chaos?

It was uhhh

[NewColtsFan]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Do you mind acknowledging that I, personally, am not a 'fire the coach' kind of person? I mean, you know that about me, right? You've been here more than ten years, you know how I am.

 

While watching the Denver game, I felt like Reich would be fired if the offense didn't score some points, and we lost. It was a Thursday game, we'd have a long week to adjust, and the bye week was still a month away. I think it's significant that I, of all people, felt that way. Not only that he should be fired, but that he would be fired. Because not only am I not a 'fire the coach" kind of guy, but Irsay is not a 'fire the coach during the season' kind of owner.

 

And like I said earlier, I started really side-eyeing Reich after the end of last season. And by Week 2 -- we got shut out in Jacksonville, after all the awareness of that matchup and its significance, and we don't even score a point?? -- I was ready for Reich to go. The idea of letting him right the ship was not interesting to me.

I 100 percent acknowledge that you are NOT a fire the coach type of fan.   100%. 
 

That’s why I’m so surprised we see this so differently.  
 

As for Irsay, I’m so disappointed in him this year.   It’s been so painful to watch and listen to.   And when he said last week that he reluctantly signed Frank to his extension, that was just the latest  moment for Irsay this year.   I didn’t see see it as bold or decisive.   I see it as pure panic and make him the fall guy for this historically bad season.   I mean, he’s the owner.  Frank had an original 5-year deal.   He had two more years to go on that deal.   Who was forcing him to extend FR by FOUR more years for a new total of six?   I mean who?!?   Ballard?  Frank’s agent?   I think it was a terrible look for the owner to make that comment.

 

Irsay now has so much on the line with this off-season I’m not optimistic that he’s going to revert back to his old ways of letting his GM run the show.   I hope that happens, but fear he won’t. 

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

We were talking about the "embarrassing" losses.

 

Wanting Sam to start and Frank saying it was the rest of the season, the switch to Sam at the time seems well considered.  Truncating the plans after losing only two games (to Snyder, Kraft/BB) seems a bit more hot headed. 

 

I'm more in the level headed camp, but I do think he is frustrated and is floundering to figure out where his team stands.  Other owners/GMs of non playoff teams seem to have a better perception about who they are as a team.

 

It's the same narrative. As if Irsay was upset because we lost some games, and he needed to find someone to fire. I think he just determined that the direction was wrong, and stepped in to change it.

[DougDew]

15 minutes ago, NorthernColt said:

 

Well from the article, it doesn't seem like it was the sole reason, but just a big one. Which I can't disagree with. To say you're not in a better spot with having Fields or Jones instead of Wentz is a bit disingenuous. Jones and Fields aren't exactly elite Qbs yet no doubt, but its their 2nd year in the league. Wentz just had his 3RD TEAM give up on him. So, I'm not sure how you see that differently.

 

But if a coach stopped you from drafting your future qb (Ballard was rumored to like Fields alot), and have it blow up in your face, I agree with the firing.

Maybe so, but I think the time to do that is the end of the season when you can evaluate the team in its totality...and can evaluate whether or not Fields or Jones are actually the future QB you want.   Firing him for that reason midseason just seems like punishing Frank for the decision rather than solving the Colts problems now. 

 

But there are other reason to fire midseason too....like thinking your team is actually playoff quality and you look for a spark to head it in its proper direction.   

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, stitches said:

I think a lot of this really wishful thinking and washing of Ballards' hands off most of his sins. I think he needs to bear responsibility for his decisions. Even if his decisions are influenced by his HC. It's still his job to have the final say on those decision. Ignoring LT was his decision for years. The bad DL-picks are his decision. I understand the offensive HC might have outsized influence on the QB position, but overall strategy is still his decision. I said when we got Rivers that I only like this decision if it's accompanied with us getting our QB of the future in that draft. He chose Buckner instead. Same goes for the following year... people wanted us to go get a QB in a strong QB class... he let Reich pick Wentz... AND gave up a ton for him. Every single year after Luck retired the go to move should have been - find a QB in the draft. He never did it. The FA strategy is still his decision. The emphasis on building from inside out is still his decision! 

 

I think a lot of your post is conjecture that we have no idea about... and not just that ... even if I grant you all of those assumptions and conjectures - it's still his job! You are making him look like an innocent bystander to his own decisions. If SO MUCH of his decisions is not really dependent on him, then what is he needed for? Hire a HC, let him pick his staff, let the staff pick their players, let the OC pick his QB path... 

 

Just... I think Ballard must bear the ultimate responsibility for the roster construction and personnel hires of this team. If he over-trusts his HC and OL-coaches... this is still on him if those decisions lead to bad OL play, bad talent development, bad QB play. etc. 

 

To the bolded, no, that's not my point at all.

 

I was responding to the idea that Ballard feels undermined by Irsay's recent decisions, as if Ballard has not had a say in those decisions. My point is that Irsay's recent decisions could have been validating for Ballard. He went along with Reich and Irsay on those other matters, and now Irsay steps back and looks at the last three years and says 'we should have done it your way.' And that's all in context of the discussion about how Ballard feels about working for Irsay moving forward.

 

If we get specific on some of Ballard's decisions, I'm not as critical of him as others are. I think there's a tendency to micro-analyze GM decisions with the benefit of hindsight, and then paint those decisions in a way that isn't entirely accurate. (For example, Ballard didn't "ignore" LT. He signed Fisher expecting him to play well, and he signed two other veterans as stopgaps while Fisher recovered from injury. That strategy failed, but he didn't ignore the position.)

 

And while I agree that we need to improve at certain positions, you're far more zealous about your preferred roster construction than I am about mine. 

 

And on the last paragraph, it's interesting to me that people always talk about the GM and coach working well together, the GM should get the coach the kind of players he wants (especially at a position like QB), etc. So how do a coach and GM handle the inevitable disagreements? You want it to be a co-op between partners, but you also expect the GM to override the coach on player acquisition? Or do people expect that a coach and GM should never disagree about player evaluations, roster construction, strategy, etc.? 

[NewColtsFan]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's the same narrative. As if Irsay was upset because we lost some games, and he needed to find someone to fire. I think he just determined that the direction was wrong, and stepped in to change it.

And stepped in to change it….   With Jeff Saturday.    

 

And then, with no Reich or Brady,  Molanovich and the RB coach both turn down the play calling job, and that left us with Parks Frazier calling plays.   The OL is still poor and the defense runs out of gas on the 2nd half because the offense still struggles for first downs much less touchdowns. 
 

Firing Frank and hiring Saturday and ending up where we are was, IMO, entirely predictable. 

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I 100 percent acknowledge that you are NOT a fire the coach type of fan.   100%. 
 

That’s why I’m so surprised we see this so differently.  
 

As for Irsay, I’m so disappointed in him this year.   It’s been so painful to watch and listen to.   And when he said last week that he reluctantly signed Frank to his extension, that was just the latest  moment for Irsay this year.   I didn’t see see it as bold or decisive.   I see it as pure panic and make him the fall guy for this historically bad season.   I mean, he’s the owner.  Frank had an original 5-year deal.   He had two more years to go on that deal.   Who was forcing him to extend FR by FOUR more years for a new total of six?   I mean who?!?   Ballard?  Frank’s agent?   I think it was a terrible look for the owner to make that comment.

 

Irsay now has so much on the line with this off-season I’m not optimistic that he’s going to revert back to his old ways of letting his GM run the show.   I hope that happens, but fear he won’t. 

 

Goes back to my earlier comment. I am optimistically hopeful that this is outlier behavior from Irsay. If it's not, it's a big problem. I agree with most of your criticisms of Irsay in this post. 

 

As for firing Reich early this season, I should be clear. I was disappointed by his performance and leadership, and I had seen enough. I'm not surprised by anyone who disagrees, but it's not an extreme viewpoint.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

And stepped in to change it….   With Jeff Saturday.    

 

And then, with no Reich or Brady,  Molanovich and the RB coach both turn down the play calling job, and that left us with Parks Frazier calling plays.   The OL is still poor and the defense runs out of gas on the 2nd half because the offense still struggles for first downs much less touchdowns. 
 

Firing Frank and hiring Saturday and ending up where we are was, IMO, entirely predictable. 

 

I didn't expect that firing Reich would make the team play better this season. Nine times out of ten, when you fire the HC during the season, things get worse, not better. And I still thought it was the right move.

 

I also blame the lack of a playcaller on Reich. He should have delegated that responsibility all along, and I felt that way for a long time. Then he fires Marcus Brady -- no indication that move was made by anyone but him -- which didn't help the offense at all. I don't blame Milanovich or Montgomery for not wanting the job, given the circumstances. Although I agree, Milanovich holding out for more money is a bad look on his part... 

 

And I don't think Parks has done any worse as a playcaller than Reich was doing.

[DougDew]

31 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's the same narrative. As if Irsay was upset because we lost some games, and he needed to find someone to fire. I think he just determined that the direction was wrong, and stepped in to change it.

Yes, I think he hired Jeff "before" firing Frank, and doing it midseason, so he could give Jeff time to figure out what was wrong, but my personal opinion is that I don't believe it is better to do it that way than it is to wait until the end of the season..   I also think he overvalued his team and is handling it poorly.

 

I was running with RollerColt's speculation about emotion, and I can also see where that could be the case.

 

 

 

[stitches]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

To the bolded, no, that's not my point at all.

 

I was responding to the idea that Ballard feels undermined by Irsay's recent decisions, as if Ballard has not had a say in those decisions. My point is that Irsay's recent decisions could have been validating for Ballard. He went along with Reich and Irsay on those other matters, and now Irsay steps back and looks at the last three years and says 'we should have done it your way.' And that's all in context of the discussion about how Ballard feels about working for Irsay moving forward.

Oh, OK. I understand what you meant now. But I still disagree... I don't think anything of what has transpired suggests that Irsay is thinking that. If anything to me it seems like he doesn't trust Ballard and is going over his head to still make important decisions. If he thought "we should have done it your way, here... start fixing this"... he wouldn't have gone with Saturday. He would have let Ballard pick the guy he thinks deserved the spot. What Irsay did is the complete opposite. 

 

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

If we get specific on some of Ballard's decisions, I'm not as critical of him as others are. I think there's a tendency to micro-analyze GM decisions with the benefit of hindsight, and then paint those decisions in a way that isn't entirely accurate. (For example, Ballard didn't "ignore" LT. He signed Fisher expecting him to play well, and he signed two other veterans as stopgaps while Fisher recovered from injury. That strategy failed, but he didn't ignore the position.)

 

And while I agree that we need to improve at certain positions, you're far more zealous about your preferred roster construction than I am about mine. 

Well, yeah... I just think his philosophy is outdated and antiquated. I think he's building a team to win the 1983 Super Bowl. And not really doing great even with that. 

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

And on the last paragraph, it's interesting to me that people always talk about the GM and coach working well together, the GM should get the coach the kind of players he wants (especially at a position like QB), etc. So how do a coach and GM handle the inevitable disagreements?

 

You want it to be a co-op between partners, but you also expect the GM to override the coach on player acquisition? Or do people expect that a coach and GM should never disagree about player evaluations, roster construction, strategy, etc.?

 

GM listens. Weighs pros and cons. Weighs things like "if I bring in a player my coach hates, he's just not going to play him" or "my coach seems to really like this guy and seems to have a good idea how to use him". And still makes his own decision... because it would still be the job of the GM to make the decision of whether he actually he thinks the guy the coach likes for a certain job will be able to do that job. Maybe the GM just doesn't believe he has the physical tools... or he thinks the player is a trouble maker who won't fit in... or... numerous other things... So when Frank tells him "I can fix Wentz", he should ask himself - Ok, I like my coach's self-belief, but how realistic is that? How many similar cases of players playing as bad as Wentz did that previous year turning themselves around exist? Or is going for the Justin Herbert guy with that amazing arm and that athleticism a better option? Weigh the options... weigh the coach's input... but then YOU MAKE THE DECISION. Not the coach. It's YOUR decision. 

[OLD FAN MAN]

1 hour ago, DynaMike said:

 

Apologies if I've missed something, as I don't have access to the article, but... Is there really any actual proof? From the excerpts I've read it seems to be just more hearsay, musings, & anonymous statements. Was there even 1 single person stating anything on the record? Or perhaps some other type of evidence? Or was it just someone claiming to have some anonymous inside information?

Again I did not read the article as I don't have access; please correct me if there is any actual evidence to support the claims.

Furthermore I am NOT claiming the opposite, just trying to listen to actual facts instead of opinions. 

Cheers!

 

i agree may be more speculation and media hype

[OLD FAN MAN]

49 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The reporter quotes Reich directly. Assuming no one calls this quote a lie, I'm fine with accepting it.

I dont trust anything a reporter says. anything for a story!!!!

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

Oh, OK. I understand what you meant now. But I still disagree... I don't think anything of what has transpired suggests that Irsay is thinking that. If anything to me it seems like he doesn't trust Ballard and is going over his head to still make important decisions. If he thought "we should have done it your way, here... start fixing this"... he wouldn't have gone with Saturday. He would have let Ballard pick the guy he thinks deserved the spot. What Irsay did is the complete opposite. 

 

I don't know what to make of the Saturday thing. It's the strongest evidence that Irsay has just gone rogue, but it's such a wild decision that it makes me think something else is up. Ultimately, the actual coaching decision will be made after the season, so unless Saturday gets the permanent job, I'm thinking something else is up.

 

Quote

GM listens. Weighs pros and cons. Weighs things like "if I bring in a player my coach hates, he's just not going to play him" or "my coach seems to really like this guy and seems to have a good idea how to use him". And still makes his own decision... because it would still be the job of the GM to make the decision of whether he actually he thinks the guy the coach likes for a certain job will be able to do that job. Maybe the GM just doesn't believe he has the physical tools... or he thinks the player is a trouble maker who won't fit in... or... numerous other things... So when Frank tells him "I can fix Wentz", he should ask himself - Ok, I like my coach's self-belief, but how realistic is that? How many similar cases of players playing as bad as Wentz did that previous year turning themselves around exist? Or is going for the Justin Herbert guy with that amazing arm and that athleticism a better option? Weigh the options... weigh the coach's input... but then YOU MAKE THE DECISION. Not the coach. It's YOUR decision. 

 

I think this is an over-simplification of a really involved process and working relationship. Specific to Wentz, if Ballard wanted to draft Fields but felt Wentz was a decent second option, while Reich felt strongly about Wentz, then of course the decision would be influenced by Reich's strong feelings. I'm not saying Ballard bears no blame in any of this. 

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I'm speculating, but what if one of the better players not being held accountable was actually Quenton Nelson. 

 

Just saying.....have we ever heard of what his practice habits or work habits are?  Lifting, conditioning, diet, attention to detail.   We have heard how gifted he is, but I never read much about how hard he works or how dedicated he is from a mental standpoint.  I think we just make assumptions about that.

Big Q has been my second favorite person we’ve drafted in recent years, Paye being the other. 
 

that said, you’re right, I can’t point to anything concrete about the questions you have raised. 

[csmopar]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I don't know what to make of the Saturday thing. It's the strongest evidence that Irsay has just gone rogue, but it's such a wild decision that it makes me think something else is up. Ultimately, the actual coaching decision will be made after the season, so unless Saturday gets the permanent job, I'm thinking something else is up.

 

 

I think this is an over-simplification of a really involved process and working relationship. Specific to Wentz, if Ballard wanted to draft Fields but felt Wentz was a decent second option, while Reich felt strongly about Wentz, then of course the decision would be influenced by Reich's strong feelings. I'm not saying Ballard bears no blame in any of this. 

On the Saturday thing. I think it’s exactly what they billed it as. They knew this team was so disorganized and so broken, that they weren’t going to win much more this season. I think Saturday being forced down Ballard’s throat as HC is Irsay wanting an outside viewpoint of the inner workings of the team, a fresh set of eyes so to speak, but those eyes with an understanding of the Colts and what the team Irsay wants. I expect there to be a roster shake up a bit, probably some more surprises like trades or even cuts. And I expect Ballard to be back. I think Jim sees real potential there and I don’t think Ballard will resign. That said, I do think Ballard’s leash is rather short.

[stitches]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't know what to make of the Saturday thing. It's the strongest evidence that Irsay has just gone rogue, but it's such a wild decision that it makes me think something else is up. Ultimately, the actual coaching decision will be made after the season, so unless Saturday gets the permanent job, I'm thinking something else is up.

I guess we will start receiving some answers after the end of the season. To start with - we probably will hear relatively early whether Ballard is staying. And then I expect pretty quickly for us to begin our coaching search if Ballard stays... or GM search if he's let go. 

 

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think this is an over-simplification of a really involved process and working relationship. Specific to Wentz, if Ballard wanted to draft Fields but felt Wentz was a decent second option, while Reich felt strongly about Wentz, then of course the decision would be influenced by Reich's strong feelings. I'm not saying Ballard bears no blame in any of this. 

Oh yeah.. .sorry... I mixed up the draft class... it was indeed Fields in the draft when we got Wentz. But yeah... you get my point though. It was indeed oversimplification, but that's the general point - you do take the coach's input, but you still have to decide if that's the path you want to go. 

[DougDew]

40 minutes ago, Superman said:

And on the last paragraph, it's interesting to me that people always talk about the GM and coach working well together, the GM should get the coach the kind of players he wants (especially at a position like QB), etc. So how do a coach and GM handle the inevitable disagreements? You want it to be a co-op between partners, but you also expect the GM to override the coach on player acquisition? Or do people expect that a coach and GM should never disagree about player evaluations, roster construction, strategy, etc.? 

 

22 minutes ago, stitches said:

GM listens. Weighs pros and cons. Weighs things like "if I bring in a player my coach hates, he's just not going to play him" or "my coach seems to really like this guy and seems to have a good idea how to use him". And still makes his own decision... because it would still be the job of the GM to make the decision of whether he actually he thinks the guy the coach likes for a certain job will be able to do that job. Maybe the GM just doesn't believe he has the physical tools... or he thinks the player is a trouble maker who won't fit in... or... numerous other things... So when Frank tells him "I can fix Wentz", he should ask himself - Ok, I like my coach's self-belief, but how realistic is that? How many similar cases of players playing as bad as Wentz did that previous year turning themselves around exist? Or is going for the Justin Herbert guy with that amazing arm and that athleticism a better option? Weigh the options... weigh the coach's input... but then YOU MAKE THE DECISION. Not the coach. It's YOUR decision. 

Sorry to butt into youz twoz conversation, but the issue of GM vs HC in roster construction needs some convo on this board.

 

I don't see anyway that the HC is running the draft white board come draft day.  The list of players ranked by positions and ranked in total.  The GM looks at the white board and makes the pick.  He talks to the scouts and analysts in the room.  IIRC, I've never seen pics or video of Reich in the draft room during the draft.

 

Reich wants a deep threat and he reviews film with the GM and the scouts weeks before the draft and says AP is "his guy" .  He helps to rank other players too.  But if AP is not there at 53, what does Ballard do, draft Skye Moore or moves to the TE Jelani Woods?  Then what player is picked with the pick Woods was selected....a lesser speed guy or the BPA defensive player? 

 

I don't think there is anyway that the HC is making those decisions.  The specific players that are picked is based upon who is remaining on the white board.  Its the GM who has to navigate player selection on draft day...often only having minutes to decide.   Then the HC has to coach the specific players he gets, under a two, three, or four year contract.  I don't see how the HC is responsible for the specific players on the roster.

 

Does it work some other way than that?

[LJpalmbeacher2]

Its not anything that we didn't really know or suspect. I only read the few highlighted excerpts from page 1 of this thread. 

But what I'd like to know, if its in the actual article or not, is why did irsay  dislike wentz  so much?? It was apparent when he started publicly criticising him in about week 5?? 

Was it because he wasn't vaxed? Was it something personal? It was apparent that wentz was going to be the scapegoat first chance irsay  got. The debacle in Jacksonville was more than what was needed.