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

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I think the point is that they decided to sign Rivers instead of drafting a QB, and that decision seems closely connected to Reich. 

Of course, he was the HC.   It was also connected to Chris Ballard, he’s the General Manager, and Jim Irsay, he’s the owner. 
 

Your comment, and that of a few others, would seem to infer that Frank Reich was setting the direction for the franchise.   That Frank Reich was telling the owner and GM, “let’s go with a veteran because we should be in win-now mode.”  And Irsay  and Ballard reluctantly went along for the ride.   I don’t believe for a second you actually subscribe to that, so what am I not understanding about your comment? 

[bluebombers87]

5 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Of course, he was the HC.   It was also connected to Chris Ballard, he’s the General Manager, and Jim Irsay, he’s the owner. 
 

Your comment, and that of a few others, would seem to infer that Frank Reich was setting the direction for the franchise.   That Frank Reich was telling the owner and GM, “let’s go with a veteran because we should be in win-now mode.”  And Irsay  and Ballard reluctantly went along for the ride.   I don’t believe for a second you actually subscribe to that, so what am I not understanding about your comment? 

I could be wrong but there was that initial “smoke” article where they initially said it was a three person decision to bench Ryan. Of course come to find out it was Irsay.

[Solid84]

14 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

Still wasn’t out of reach.

 

Edit - We we’re 3-3-1 when Irsay demanded we bench Ryan.

You’re just looking at the stats and saying all we had to do was win 5-6 more games and we would be in the playoffs. 
 

You’re completely disregarding that the football the Colts have been playing this season is EASILY some of the worst they’ve played the last 20+ years. There weren’t 5-6 more wins in this team. If anything we should have won one or two games less than we have. 

[bluebombers87]

2 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

You’re just looking at the stats and saying all we had to do was win 5-6 more games and we would be in the playoffs. 
 

You’re completely disregarding that the football the Colts have been playing this season is EASILY some of the worst they’ve played the last 20+ years. There weren’t 5-6 more wins in this team. If anything we should have won one or two games less than we have. 

We’ll never know because Irsay started his meddling when we were 3-3-1. Previous seasons under Reich we’ve had slow starts and had strong finishes. Not saying we would have done that but you can’t rule it out either.

[IndySouthsider]

5 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

We’ll never know because Irsay started his meddling when we were 3-3-1. Previous seasons under Reich we’ve had slow starts and had strong finishes. Not saying we would have done that but you can’t rule it out either.

What about Ryan’s play led you to believe for a second he can lead this team to the playoffs. It’s not the meddling it’s the off-season decisions. One most thought were good ones. Matt Ryan looks like a football player who should hang it up.

[bluebombers87]

1 minute ago, IndySouthsider said:

What about Ryan’s play led you to believe for a second he can lead this team to the playoffs. It’s not the meddling it’s the off-season decisions. One most thought were good ones. Matt Ryan looks like a football player who should hang it up.

I literally said “not saying we would have done that”. 
 

The point was that we’ll never know because the owner got impatient. There were plenty of people here who were calling for rivers to be benched at some point.

[IndySouthsider]

Just now, bluebombers87 said:

I literally said “not saying we would have done that”. 
 

The point was that we’ll never know because the owner got impatient. There were plenty of people here who were calling for rivers to be benched at some point.

I’m not sure that Ryan isn’t still hurt. If he isn’t his arm literally fell off this year.

[Indyfan4life]

7 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

We’ll never know because Irsay started his meddling when we were 3-3-1. Previous seasons under Reich we’ve had slow starts and had strong finishes. Not saying we would have done that but you can’t rule it out either.

Lol nah. Taylor was injured off and on most of the season. Oline played like a dumpster fire. Ryan is washed. Sam and Foles weren't the answer. Even if Frank wasn't let go, this team would continue to play at the same level. You can do any mental gymnastics you want and say "oh well they just needed 5-7 more wins and we'd be in the playoffs, but it's Jim's fault they aren't." We almost lost to Denver and only won because Gilly had a monster play, and Wilson missed a WIDE OPEN receiver.

 

Previous seasons and what did or didn't happen do not matter.

[bluebombers87]

1 minute ago, Indyfan4life said:

Lol nah. Taylor was injured off and on most of the season. Oline played like a dumpster fire. Ryan is washed. Sam and Foles weren't the answer. Even if Frank wasn't let go, this team would continue to play at the same level. You can do any mental gymnastics you want and say "oh well they just needed 5-7 more wins and we'd be in the playoffs, but it's Jim's fault they aren't." We almost lost to Denver and only won because Gilly had a monster play, and Wilson missed a WIDE OPEN receiver.

 

Previous seasons and what did or didn't happen do not matter.

So why get rid of frank mid season?

[crazycolt1]

7 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

So why get rid of frank mid season?

Why not? He was evidently not holding players accountable. Irsay needed eyes and ears in the locker room and that is why Saturday was hired. 

[bluebombers87]

5 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Why not? He was evidently not holding players accountable. Irsay needed eyes and ears in the locker room and that is why Saturday was hired. 

Eyes and ears for what purpose?
 

And your saying that there was no assistant, no other coach or player that could’ve done that? Ballard couldn’t have evaluated the players since he trusts him?

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, bluebombers87 said:

Eyes and ears for what purpose?
 

And your saying that there was no assistant, no other coach or player that could’ve done that? Ballard couldn’t have evaluated the players since he trusts him?

Ballard is not part of the locker room. Irsay doesn't trust the ones who don't hold themselves accountable. It's not hard to understand.  

[bluebombers87]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

Ballard is not part of the locker room. Irsay doesn't trust the ones who don't hold themselves accountable. It's not hard to understand.  

Ok but why does Irsay need eyes and ears? What does he gain from that?

 

And I never said Ballard was part of the locker room. I said he can evaluate the roster, as that is his job (evaluating players). 
 

Unless you’re saying there was a coup being planned, what information about locker room activities would be beneficial enough for an owner to uncharacteristically fire someone mid season as opposed to the end of the season as they have always done? 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Wrong thread 

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, bluebombers87 said:

Ok but why does Irsay need eyes and ears? What does he gain from that?

 

And I never said Ballard was part of the locker room. I said he can evaluate the roster, as that is his job (evaluating players). 
 

Unless you’re saying there was a coup being planned, what information about locker room activities would be beneficial enough for an owner to uncharacteristically fire someone mid season as opposed to the end of the season as they have always done? 

Irsay wanted to know what was and wasn't going on in the locker room. What difference does it really make when a coach is fired if he deserves it? 

[bluebombers87]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

Irsay wanted to know what was and wasn't going on in the locker room. What difference does it really make when a coach is fired if he deserves it? 

But why would he need to know that? What possible benefit is there to know what is going on in the locker room? Do you think Frank was orchestrating a mutiny?

 

It makes a difference because it has the potential to scare off the caliber of coach needed to correct the downward trend we’ve been sent on.

[crazycolt1]

Just now, bluebombers87 said:

But why would he need to know that? What possible benefit is there to know what is going on in the locker room? Do you think Frank was orchestrating a mutiny?

 

It makes a difference because it has the potential to scare off the caliber of coach needed to correct the downward trend we’ve been sent on.

No Frank wasn't orchestrating a mutiny. He wasn't holding the players accountable. Honestly I think he wanted to be their friend instead of their coach. 

He wasn't making the tough decisions when needed. 

Getting yourself worked up doesn't help. We have no control over any of it. 

Lots of excitement coming up with the remaining bowl games and the combine. Then the draft. Put this season to bed.

[bluebombers87]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

No Frank wasn't orchestrating a mutiny. He wasn't holding the players accountable. Honestly I think he wanted to be their friend instead of their coach. 

He wasn't making the tough decisions when needed. 

Getting yourself worked up doesn't help. We have no control over any of it. 

Lots of excitement coming up with the remaining bowl games and the combine. Then the draft. Put this season to bed.

But why does Irsay need to know that? Isn’t that a Ballard concern? If players are underperforming or not living up to to what they should, isn’t that the GM who is responsible for that? 
 

And clearly there were individuals who weren’t afraid of talking about players not being held accountable, hence these reports. It just doesn’t make any sense that Irsay felt it necessary to do all of this to find out if players are being held accountable. He could’ve very easily gotten that information without the ensuing media circus.

 

I think Jim got ticked off after losing to the Pats, called up Saturday and said he was gonna fire Frank and if he would take the job.

 

We very likely would’ve ended up in roughly the same spot, but without all the unnecessary drama that was self inflicted by acting impulsively. Blindly defending individuals when they behave poorly isn’t a good solution.

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, bluebombers87 said:

But why does Irsay need to know that? Isn’t that a Ballard concern? If players are underperforming or not living up to to what they should, isn’t that the GM who is responsible for that? 
 

And clearly there were individuals who weren’t afraid of talking about players not being held accountable, hence these reports. It just doesn’t make any sense that Irsay felt it necessary to do all of this to find out if players are being held accountable. He could’ve very easily gotten that information without the ensuing media circus.

 

I think Jim got ticked off after losing to the Pats, called up Saturday and said he was gonna fire Frank and if he would take the job.

 

We very likely would’ve ended up in roughly the same spot, but without all the unnecessary drama that was self inflicted by acting impulsively. Blindly defending individuals when they behave poorly isn’t a good solution.

Jeez, you take this stuff way too serious. If you haven't figured out by now that Irsay is not your typical owner I don't know what to say to you.  

[bluebombers87]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

Jeez, you take this stuff way too serious. If you haven't figured out by now that Irsay is not your typical owner I don't know what to say to you.  

I’m not the one following him like a lost puppy. 
 

And him being atypical is fine. Making the lives of your GM harder isn’t. This shouldn’t need to be explained.

[crazycolt1]

6 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

I’m not the one following him like a lost puppy. 
 

And him being atypical is fine. Making the lives of your GM harder isn’t. This shouldn’t need to be explained.

I debate with you in good faith and you want to insult me? No more.

You are ridiculous. 

Welcome to ignore. 

[bluebombers87]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

I debate with you in good faith and you want to insult me? No more.

You are ridiculous. 

Welcome to ignore. 

Seriously? Look like three of your posts up. A bit hypocritical.

[AwesomeAustin]

7 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

The first draft after Luck retired was 2020.

 

Ballard traded the first round pick for Buckner.   That seemed entirely Ballard’s idea, not Reich’s. 

I believe it went along with going for it with Rivers.  Get the 3T, another receiver and JT and make a big push. I think Ballard backed his coach but he should have pushed to get a QB.  Hard to tell bc they may not have liked Herbert or Tua or if they did not want to give up draft picks. Hard to say what went down behind closed doors.  All I know is Rivers and Wentz were previously connected with Reich and they were the QBs brought in.  Don’t think it’s all Reich’s fault bc Ballard is the boss but I personally believe Reich got who he asked for and Ballard backed him up.  My opinion. 

[OLD FAN MAN]

On 1/6/2023 at 8:38 PM, NewColtsFan said:

Less visibility?   This year, Ballard has practically put himself in the witness protection program.  
 

In 17 thru 20, Ballard face quarterly seasonal updates.  Last year there were just two.   This year, will be just one— the year ender.    The only other time he’s been in front of cameras and microphones was the Saturday introduction.   CB used the occasion to blame the media for him doing a poor job. 
 

Ballard couldn't have much less visibility. 

if i was ballard with this roster he built i would vanish too

[crazycolt1]

46 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

if i was ballard with this roster he built i would vanish too

There's a joke in that comment somewhere. 

[Superman]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Of course, he was the HC.   It was also connected to Chris Ballard, he’s the General Manager, and Jim Irsay, he’s the owner. 
 

Your comment, and that of a few others, would seem to infer that Frank Reich was setting the direction for the franchise.   That Frank Reich was telling the owner and GM, “let’s go with a veteran because we should be in win-now mode.”  And Irsay  and Ballard reluctantly went along for the ride.   I don’t believe for a second you actually subscribe to that, so what am I not understanding about your comment? 

 

I don't know where the disconnect is, and I feel like I've stated my position on this a few times in this thread already. 

 

You responded to a post that implied that Reich was the driving force behind the team going the veteran QB route, and that Irsay may have held him responsible for it. Your response brought up the Buckner trade, saying Ballard was behind the decision to trade that pick rather than draft a QB. But it seems like you're missing the point: They had already set their sights on signing Rivers. 

 

I am not implying that Reich set the course, and Ballard and Irsay reluctantly went along with it. I'm saying that Reich was a voice in the room -- former long time QB, hired partly because of his reputation for being good with QBs, it makes sense that his viewpoint would be valued. Once they came out of that room with a decision, the decision has to be owned by all of them. But if they walked into the room with competing ideas, and by the end of the discussion it was Reich's idea that prevailed, the people in the room know how the conversations went. If Reich was pounding the table for Rivers, they all know. And if Irsay looks back and feels like they all bought into Reich's vision, but it didn't work, it could explain why he fired Reich but kept Ballard. 

 

I don't think that's a complicated thought process. I definitely don't think it's unrealistic. I'm not presenting it as fact, I'm offering it as a possibility. 

[csmopar]

5 hours ago, bluebombers87 said:

Eyes and ears for what purpose?
 

And your saying that there was no assistant, no other coach or player that could’ve done that? Ballard couldn’t have evaluated the players since he trusts him?

It’s clear Irsay wanted a fresh, unbiased view point. All the existing staff including Ballard couldn’t have provided that

[bluebombers87]

34 minutes ago, csmopar said:

It’s clear Irsay wanted a fresh, unbiased view point. All the existing staff including Ballard couldn’t have provided that

Ok but for what purpose? What will he do with that knowledge?

 

And if Ballard couldn’t have provided that, if he can’t be relied upon in that way, why is he still here?

[ShuteAt168]

11 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

Ok but for what purpose? What will he do with that knowledge?

 

And if Ballard couldn’t have provided that, if he can’t be relied upon in that way, why is he still here?

Because Ballard is about self preservation. The ego won’t allow true reflection. There’s no other way to look at his comment about how, once he finally drafts a QB, the clock starts ticking and he’d be the first one run out of town when he doesn’t play well. What GM talks like that or thinks like that? It should be, “Look. You guys were on my * for years to get a QB and, look, I waited and drafted my guy, and, look, he’s gonna win us the division next year.” 

[bluebombers87]

32 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

Because Ballard is about self preservation. The ego won’t allow true reflection. There’s no other way to look at his comment about how, once he finally drafts a QB, the clock starts ticking and he’d be the first one run out of town when he doesn’t play well. What GM talks like that or thinks like that? It should be, “Look. You guys were on my * for years to get a QB and, look, I waited and drafted my guy, and, look, he’s gonna win us the division next year.” 

So with that publicly available info, why did Irsay keep him? Why did he say all those nice things about him? Was he lying?

[ShuteAt168]

10 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

So with that publicly available info, why did Irsay keep him? Why did he say all those nice things about him? Was he lying?

I think it was incoherent psycho babble. 

[DougDew]

9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

comment, and that of a few others, would seem to infer that Frank Reich was setting the direction for the franchise.   That Frank Reich was telling the owner and GM, “let’s go with a veteran because we should be in win-now mode.”  And Irsay  and Ballard reluctantly went along for the ride.

Post of the season!   Congratulations.   (not Supe's comment, but the general tone of a lot of them)

 

Frank was familiar with Rivers and Wentz, so somehow he is responsible.  But Frank had no connection with Ryan, so a "connection" doesn't seem to be the driving force behind getting a vet QB.  I'm sure it contributes, but something else is driving the decision to go vet rather than go rookie.

 

Somebody in the FO thought that "we were only a QB away".   Therein lies the problem, IMO.

[csmopar]

2 hours ago, bluebombers87 said:

Ok but for what purpose? What will he do with that knowledge?

 

And if Ballard couldn’t have provided that, if he can’t be relied upon in that way, why is he still here?

You’re not getting it. Still. Let me try again,
 

it is not that Ballard could not provide insight, Irsay wanted NEW insight.

Look, you put ten people into a room to observe say a group of 100 people, you’re gonna get 10 different perspectives.  Irsay wanted a NEW perspective.  

 

No person, not Ballard not Reich, not Reggie or anyone else can give a new perspective because they likely have already given theirs and plus, they’ve already been tainted by being here.

 

This is why Irsay even said, he wanted a NEW look at the team.  

 

This has nothing to do with Ballard or what he can or can’t provide. 

[csmopar]

42 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Post of the season!   Congratulations.   (not Supe's comment, but the general tone of a lot of them)

 

Frank was familiar with Rivers and Wentz, so somehow he is responsible.  But Frank had no connection with Ryan, so a "connection" doesn't seem to be the driving force behind getting a vet QB.  I'm sure it contributes, but something else is driving the decision to go vet rather than go rookie.

 

Somebody in the FO thought that "we were only a QB away".   Therein lies the problem, IMO.

Here’s the thing, some coaches don’t want a rookie QB. Some coaches hate coaching a rookie QB. So that COULD be a factor. 
 

but I think the bigger factor is the cost to trade up to get a decent rookie to try to groom has been super high considering where we’ve been drafting, the late teens to mid 20s.  In addition, last years draft, the QB prospects were even worse than this years prospects and a big reason why no QB went in the first round. Despite plenty of QB needy teams. 
 

 

now if they sign a vet qb this year and not draft a rookie, despite me thinking this class looks like 2013 again, then yeah, I’d say it’s 100 percent on Ballard. He’s gotta take a swing at a QB, that I get. I just hope this year he doesn’t sell the farm to do it either.

[bluebombers87]

47 minutes ago, csmopar said:

You’re not getting it. Still. Let me try again,
 

it is not that Ballard could not provide insight, Irsay wanted NEW insight.

Look, you put ten people into a room to observe say a group of 100 people, you’re gonna get 10 different perspectives.  Irsay wanted a NEW perspective.  

 

No person, not Ballard not Reich, not Reggie or anyone else can give a new perspective because they likely have already given theirs and plus, they’ve already been tainted by being here.

 

This is why Irsay even said, he wanted a NEW look at the team.  

 

This has nothing to do with Ballard or what he can or can’t provide. 

Insight for what? You’ve never answered this. If he wants this new perspective, to what end?

 

The overarching point of this is to identify the purpose of Irsay doing all the meddling this season and to weigh it against the positives of whatever the purpose is.

 

We know what the negatives of his involvement this season are. Regression, players giving up, being on the wrong end of history multiple times, criticism from outside players and coaches, anger and apathy from the fans (who are the sole customer). If he’s going to suffer all those drawbacks, it better be for something more than “perspective”. If at the end of the season all we have to gain from this fiasco is “perspective”, I don’t think it’s worth it. My opinion. Yours may be different. But by all means keep on with the smug attitude.

[csmopar]

7 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

Insight for what? You’ve never answered this. If he wants this new perspective, to what end?

 

The overarching point of this is to identify the purpose of Irsay doing all the meddling this season and to weigh it against the positives of whatever the purpose is.

 

We know what the negatives of his involvement this season are. Regression, players giving up, being on the wrong end of history multiple times, criticism from outside players and coaches, anger and apathy from the fans (who are the sole customer). If he’s going to suffer all those drawbacks, it better be for something more than “perspective”. If at the end of the season all we have to gain from this fiasco is “perspective”, I don’t think it’s worth it. My opinion. Yours may be different. But by all means keep on with the smug attitude.

I don’t know what exactly Jim is looking for. He just mentioned it in his pressers, twice. No one besides Jim and the inner circle likely knows what insights he’s looking for.

you need to look in the mirror. You’ve now gotten an attitude with at least two posters in this thread. All I’m doing is trying to have a respectful conversation. 

[bluebombers87]

7 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I don’t know what exactly Jim is looking for. He just mentioned it in his pressers, twice. No one besides Jim and the inner circle likely knows what insights he’s looking for.

you need to look in the mirror. You’ve now gotten an attitude with at least two posters in this thread. All I’m doing is trying to have a respectful conversation. 

That’s the point I’ve been trying to make though. From many fans’ view, this perspective isn’t really worth the chaos that it’s brought. That’s why we’re upset with Irsay for all of this. Not saying he’s the sole problem. But it certainly is a problem.

 

And I am solely reactive in my approach to people. Your comment of “You’re not getting it. Still…” can easily be perceived as condescending.

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

That’s the point I’ve been trying to make though. From many fans’ view, this perspective isn’t really worth the chaos that it’s brought. That’s why we’re upset with Irsay for all of this. Not saying he’s the sole problem. But it certainly is a problem.

 

And I am solely reactive in my approach to people. Your comment of “You’re not getting it. Still…” can easily be perceived as condescending.

My apologies. I was directly that more as a failure on my part to adequately explain what I was trying to say.

 

that said, part of me wonders if Irsay was testing the “culture” of certain players in that locker room to see how they’d respond to a tougher, more accountable approach. Based on what we have seen, some have, some have wilted further. I expect some surprise cuts and trades in the coming weeks based on the insights Jim learns. 

[bluebombers87]

11 minutes ago, csmopar said:

My apologies. I was directly that more as a failure on my part to adequately explain what I was trying to say.

 

that said, part of me wonders if Irsay was testing the “culture” of certain players in that locker room to see how they’d respond to a tougher, more accountable approach. Based on what we have seen, some have, some have wilted further. I expect some surprise cuts and trades in the coming weeks based on the insights Jim learns. 

No worries!

 

I hope that’s the case. If Ballard is gonna stay and that’s something he’s in on, it’s a strategy that could work. I think it’s all too soon to fully evaluate the season. I just don’t like the chaos for a team that hasn’t had any (relatively) for quite some time.

[John Hammonds]

9 hours ago, AwesomeAustin said:

I believe it went along with going for it with Rivers.  Get the 3T, another receiver and JT and make a big push. I think Ballard backed his coach but he should have pushed to get a QB.  Hard to tell bc they may not have liked Herbert or Tua or if they did not want to give up draft picks. Hard to say what went down behind closed doors.  All I know is Rivers and Wentz were previously connected with Reich and they were the QBs brought in.  Don’t think it’s all Reich’s fault bc Ballard is the boss but I personally believe Reich got who he asked for and Ballard backed him up.  My opinion. 

I agree with you, Austin.  I don't think that you can parse all decisions down to "this was Irsay" and "this was Ballard" and "this was Reich".  They all mix and blend, and are discussed by amongst all three of them.

 

I've been in corporate business long enough to understand that behind closed doors, you can disagree, debate, and even shout angrily.  But when you emerge from those doors, you speak with one voice.  And everyone in the organization knows that the direction we're going is the direction we're going.  And nobody knows who was where, and how hard they fought for it, behind closed doors.

 

I believe they entered the room in 2020 with three different mindsets.  Irsay wanted to go ahead and get a young QB and train him up.  Reich wanted to work with those he'd previously worked with.  And Ballard wanted to spend his draft picks wisely.

 

Behind door #1 was trading up in the draft to get the young QB.  But in order to get a quality QB, they would have needed to trade all the way from 13 up to 4, in front of the Dolphins and the Chargers, who were both guaranteed to take QB's.  The draft capital cost to do that would have been enormous.  Something that Ballard would have been hugely against.

Behind door #2 was Jordan Love.  He was the flavor of the month.  Enormous hype.  Hugely.  So much so that Chris Ballard himself went to scout his games.  More than once, I think.  And I think they decided that Love wasn't what the hype was saying.  And that it wasn't worth picking him at 13, or even picking him in the first round.

And behind door #3 was Phillip Rivers.  Both Reich and Sirianni were his coaches with the Chargers.  They would be like the Blues Brothers "getting the band back together again".  Signing Rivers for 2 years gave them a quality QB to play, someone who had worked with Reich before, and freed up Ballard to do other things in the draft.

 

AND IT WORKED.  They went 11-5, barely lost 24-27 in the playoffs to the Bills, traded their #13 draft for a proven Pro Bowl DT, and added both Pittman and Taylor.  The decision worked.

 

At least, it worked for a year.  And then they get blindsided for the second time by a QB deciding to retire before they wanted him to.  Who knows what pitch Reich made to Irsay and Ballard?  "Hey guys, we did it with Rivers, I bet we could do it with another QB that I previously coached too!"  We do know that Reich said in the aftermath that he'd "stuck his neck out" for Wentz.

And lest we forget, the Wentz debacle didn't happen in a vacuum.  Ballard had his own troubles.  His solutions at LT and DE didn't work out.  The team got washed over by the aftermath of the 2019 draft.  No, this was a coalescing of storms.  Storms that had multiple authors, not just a single one.  Nobody's hands are clean in this.