Ballard and Irsay Could Learn A Lot from Super Bowl GM's!

[philba101]

GMs Howie Roseman, Brett Veach discuss aggressive moves that led to Super Bowl LVII berths! This is a very interesting article about how the NFL is setup. Both the GM"s of the Eagles and Chiefs talk about how they believe being willing to be more aggressive than other teams gives them a competitive advantage. Chris Ballard could learn a lot from these two GM's. Here are the excerpts that stuck out to me the most.

 

1. The moves looked like gambles. They paid off big-time with a Super Bowl berth. Roseman said Monday that he never fears taking a big swing when the alternative is settling for mediocrity.

2. "When we won a championship, we'd made aggressive decisions, and we had taken some risks, and we saw that it's hard because the league is designed like a bell curve," he said during Super Bowl LVII Opening Night. "They want most teams to be in the middle of the bell curve. So for you to take a chance and try to get to the top of the bell curve, you probably have to risk being at the opposite end. I think for us, it would be worse to fall in the middle than it would be taking a chance to be great and maybe falling back."

3. Brett Veach-We've got to be calculated, but at the same time, you can't just sit back and wait for things to happen. (Chris Ballard) You have to make things happen. I certainly got a taste of that in Philly and was able to carry that to Kansas City."

4. The Eagles have done a good job of adapting and adjusting over the years and maybe having a thought process or a path charted out, but then they have to quickly veer. And you have to be able to do that, whether that be in free agency, signing players, or trading players and having to alter your route. You have to have a plan, stick to it, but take calculated swings."

5. When you're kind of at a crossroads there, you have to be aggressive in another way, and that's acquiring picks and not being afraid to make moves like (trading Hill) (Who trades one of the top receivers in the league?) It's one of those things that you plan, and then when reality hits, it's harder than you think because there is an emotional aspect to players and legacies and what have you. But credit to the staff and the organization for sticking behind the plan. These guys have done a tremendous job, and we've got one more game to go, and we'll see how it goes."

6. Brett Veach-Fearlessness in the face of challenging situations has separated Kansas City and Philadelphia from the middle of that bell curve. "You have to make things happen in this business and this league," Veach said. "Things aren't just going to fall into your lap. Good luck is just a product of good preparation and planning. 

https://www.nfl.com/news/gms-howie-roseman-brett-veach-discuss-aggressive-moves-that-led-to-super-bowl-lv

 

[Yoshinator]

16 minutes ago, philba101 said:

GMs Howie Roseman, Brett Veach discuss aggressive moves that led to Super Bowl LVII berths! This is a very interesting article about how the NFL is setup. Both the GM"s of the Eagles and Chiefs talk about how they believe being willing to be more aggressive than other teams gives them a competitive advantage. Chris Ballard could learn a lot from these two GM's. Here are the excerpts that stuck out to me the most.

 

1. The moves looked like gambles. They paid off big-time with a Super Bowl berth. Roseman said Monday that he never fears taking a big swing when the alternative is settling for mediocrity.

2. "When we won a championship, we'd made aggressive decisions, and we had taken some risks, and we saw that it's hard because the league is designed like a bell curve," he said during Super Bowl LVII Opening Night. "They want most teams to be in the middle of the bell curve. So for you to take a chance and try to get to the top of the bell curve, you probably have to risk being at the opposite end. I think for us, it would be worse to fall in the middle than it would be taking a chance to be great and maybe falling back."

3. Brett Veach-We've got to be calculated, but at the same time, you can't just sit back and wait for things to happen. (Chris Ballard) You have to make things happen. I certainly got a taste of that in Philly and was able to carry that to Kansas City."

4. The Eagles have done a good job of adapting and adjusting over the years and maybe having a thought process or a path charted out, but then they have to quickly veer. And you have to be able to do that, whether that be in free agency, signing players, or trading players and having to alter your route. You have to have a plan, stick to it, but take calculated swings."

5. When you're kind of at a crossroads there, you have to be aggressive in another way, and that's acquiring picks and not being afraid to make moves like (trading Hill) (Who trades one of the top receivers in the league?) It's one of those things that you plan, and then when reality hits, it's harder than you think because there is an emotional aspect to players and legacies and what have you. But credit to the staff and the organization for sticking behind the plan. These guys have done a tremendous job, and we've got one more game to go, and we'll see how it goes."

6. Brett Veach-Fearlessness in the face of challenging situations has separated Kansas City and Philadelphia from the middle of that bell curve. "You have to make things happen in this business and this league," Veach said. "Things aren't just going to fall into your lap. Good luck is just a product of good preparation and planning. 

https://www.nfl.com/news/gms-howie-roseman-brett-veach-discuss-aggressive-moves-that-led-to-super-bowl-lv

 

Agree 100%. Ballard is too timid, and he has gotten what he deserved as a GM record-wise because of it. Losing record, no division wins, 1 playoff win in 6 years. You have to risk it to get the biscuit! Been a believer in that my entire life. 

[philba101]

3 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Agree 100%. Ballard is too timid, and he has gotten what he deserved as a GM record-wise because of it. Losing record, no division wins, 1 playoff win in 6 years. You have to risk it to get the biscuit! Been a believer in that my entire life. 

Well said, maybe we should have lured Arians out of retirement to be our coach/GM.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, philba101 said:

Well said, maybe we should have lured Arians out of retirement to be our coach/GM.

Definitely not our GM, but maybe Irsay should of forced Ballard to be more aggressive drafting and signing skill players and premium positions. Part of it is Reich's fault with the QBs, but Ballard had the final say.

[philba101]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Definitely not our GM, but maybe Irsay should of forced Ballard to be more aggressive drafting and signing skill players and premium positions. Part of it is Reich's fault with the QBs, but Ballard had the final say.

You are probably right. However, if Irsay keeps having to step in to force Ballard to do stuff, then perhaps he needs to find a new GM with a more aggressive mindset. Ballard is very guarded in most of his transactions. In that way he is calculated as they discuss in the article, but he does not swing for the fences. This is why we remain at or below the bell curve for the league.

[richard pallo]

I don’t think the criticism that Ballard is not aggressive holds much water.  The moves did not all work out but he has been aggressive.  He made an aggressive move in trading for Wentz and Ryan both quarterbacks his coach thought he could win with.  He traded a 1st rd pick for Buckner which was the 13th pick and that worked out fine.  He didn’t sit there and wait for JT to fall to him he aggressively made the trade to move up and get him.  Last year he traded a future 3rd to get Nick Cross.  Oh and he traded Sin to get an ER in Yannick and he led the team in sacks.  Saying Ballard is not aggressive and doesn’t take swings is really way off the mark and not a fair criticism at all.  He has definitely taken plenty of swings.

[throwing BBZ]

1 hour ago, philba101 said:

GMs Howie Roseman, Brett Veach discuss aggressive moves that led to Super Bowl LVII berths! This is a very interesting article about how the NFL is setup. Both the GM"s of the Eagles and Chiefs talk about how they believe being willing to be more aggressive than other teams gives them a competitive advantage. Chris Ballard could learn a lot from these two GM's. Here are the excerpts that stuck out to me the most.

 

1. The moves looked like gambles. They paid off big-time with a Super Bowl berth. Roseman said Monday that he never fears taking a big swing when the alternative is settling for mediocrity.

2. "When we won a championship, we'd made aggressive decisions, and we had taken some risks, and we saw that it's hard because the league is designed like a bell curve," he said during Super Bowl LVII Opening Night. "They want most teams to be in the middle of the bell curve. So for you to take a chance and try to get to the top of the bell curve, you probably have to risk being at the opposite end. I think for us, it would be worse to fall in the middle than it would be taking a chance to be great and maybe falling back."

3. Brett Veach-We've got to be calculated, but at the same time, you can't just sit back and wait for things to happen. (Chris Ballard) You have to make things happen. I certainly got a taste of that in Philly and was able to carry that to Kansas City."

4. The Eagles have done a good job of adapting and adjusting over the years and maybe having a thought process or a path charted out, but then they have to quickly veer. And you have to be able to do that, whether that be in free agency, signing players, or trading players and having to alter your route. You have to have a plan, stick to it, but take calculated swings."

5. When you're kind of at a crossroads there, you have to be aggressive in another way, and that's acquiring picks and not being afraid to make moves like (trading Hill) (Who trades one of the top receivers in the league?) It's one of those things that you plan, and then when reality hits, it's harder than you think because there is an emotional aspect to players and legacies and what have you. But credit to the staff and the organization for sticking behind the plan. These guys have done a tremendous job, and we've got one more game to go, and we'll see how it goes."

6. Brett Veach-Fearlessness in the face of challenging situations has separated Kansas City and Philadelphia from the middle of that bell curve. "You have to make things happen in this business and this league," Veach said. "Things aren't just going to fall into your lap. Good luck is just a product of good preparation and planning. 

https://www.nfl.com/news/gms-howie-roseman-brett-veach-discuss-aggressive-moves-that-led-to-super-bowl-lv

 

 

 Yada yada yada Ballards LUCK Quit and went home.

 Ballard failed horribly drafting DE's, lost big time with the Campbell pick, his philosophy of big WR'S, and corners has proved HE can't team build that way.

 What the... with Pryor AND Pinter?

 Irsay/Ballard.... remind me of Jerry Jones.  This is an evaluation period on their thinking and Leadership. 

[Defjamz26]

1 hour ago, philba101 said:

5. When you're kind of at a crossroads there, you have to be aggressive in another way, and that's acquiring picks and not being afraid to make moves like (trading Hill)

 

1 hour ago, philba101 said:

"They want most teams to be in the middle of the bell curve. So for you to take a chance and try to get to the top of the bell curve, you probably have to risk being at the opposite end. I think for us, it would be worse to fall in the middle than it would be taking a chance to be great and maybe falling back."

I think these two quotes are key. First you have to be aggressive. The Eagles have gone after too FAs (Slay) and also traded for players like CGJ, Brown, and Robert Quinn. In fact, they’ve been aggressive constantly in both the draft and FA.

 

Also not being afraid to fail is key. It’s natural that not every move or pick is going to work out. That’s part of the business though. If your GM is worth his salt though, the misses won’t matter because of the big hits. People here are always pushing the narrative that you can’t just reach for a QB because if you miss, it sets you back for years. But I’ll say this again. When was the last time people talked about the Eagles trading up to draft Carson Wentz and how it set them back for years? They’re in the Super Bowl with a different QB just a few years later. No one cares that they traded up for Wentz anymore.

 

Ballard is so risk aversion because he thinks missing will cost him his job. But being passive has gotten him in just as much hot water where he himself had to come out and say that he failed. 

6 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I don’t think the criticism that Ballard is not aggressive holds much water.  The moves did not all work out but he has been aggressive.  He made an aggressive move in trading for Wentz and Ryan both quarterbacks his coach thought he could win with.  He traded a 1st rd pick for Buckner which was the 13th pick and that worked out fine.  He didn’t sit there and wait for JT to fall to him he aggressively made the trade to move up and get him.  Last year he traded a future 3rd to get Nick Cross.  Oh and he traded Sin to get an ER in Yannick and he led the team in sacks.  Saying Ballard is not aggressive and doesn’t take swings is really way off the mark and not a fair criticism at all.  He has definitely taken plenty of swings.

Those aren’t aggressive moves. They’re risk aversion moves.

[csmopar]

6 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Yada yada yada Ballards LUCK Quit and went home.

 Ballard failed horribly drafting DE's, lost big time with the Campbell pick, his philosophy of big WR'S, and corners has proved HE can't team build that way.

 What the... with Pryor AND Pinter?

 Irsay/Ballard.... remind me of Jerry Jones.  This is an evaluation period on their thinking and Leadership. 

Um Kwitty Paye says hi

[richard pallo]

26 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

 

I think these two quotes are key. First you have to be aggressive. The Eagles have gone after too FAs (Slay) and also traded for players like CGJ, Brown, and Robert Quinn. In fact, they’ve been aggressive constantly in both the draft and FA.

 

Also not being afraid to fail is key. It’s natural that not every move or pick is going to work out. That’s part of the business though. If your GM is worth his salt though, the misses won’t matter because of the big hits. People here are always pushing the narrative that you can’t just reach for a QB because if you miss, it sets you back for years. But I’ll say this again. When was the last time people talked about the Eagles trading up to draft Carson Wentz and how it set them back for years? They’re in the Super Bowl with a different QB just a few years later. No one cares that they traded up for Wentz anymore.

 

Ballard is so risk aversion because he thinks missing will cost him his job. But being passive has gotten him in just as much hot water where he himself had to come out and say that he failed. 

Those aren’t aggressive moves. They’re risk aversion moves.

Silly.

[chad72]

44 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I don’t think the criticism that Ballard is not aggressive holds much water.  The moves did not all work out but he has been aggressive.  He made an aggressive move in trading for Wentz and Ryan both quarterbacks his coach thought he could win with.  He traded a 1st rd pick for Buckner which was the 13th pick and that worked out fine.  He didn’t sit there and wait for JT to fall to him he aggressively made the trade to move up and get him.  Last year he traded a future 3rd to get Nick Cross.  Oh and he traded Sin to get an ER in Yannick and he led the team in sacks.  Saying Ballard is not aggressive and doesn’t take swings is really way off the mark and not a fair criticism at all.  He has definitely taken plenty of swings.

 

Yes, but he is partially aggressive compared to the SB teams. The main issue is the number of difference makers drafted. Too many misses for my liking that have not been compensated by FA signings. Let go of Autry and Houston, and finally this last year, we had a semblance of a pass rush with a front four. 

 

Turay, Lewis, Banogu etc. turn out to be JAGs with high draft picks blown on them. The main issue however has stemmed around the QB position. The SB teams either had their franchise QB like Mahomes whose contract could be stretched over 10 years or are working with a rookie QB in Hurts. Ballard should have ripped the band aid off the moment Rivers said he wouldn't come back, IMO, or even before Rivers was signed, and would be in a position with draft picks and possibly a rookie QB to work with and FAs to work around that. Instead, kicking the can down the road has cost him and the Colts dearly.

 

 

[richard pallo]

8 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Yes, but he is partially aggressive compared to the SB teams. The main issue is the number of difference makers drafted. Too many misses for my liking that have not been compensated by FA signings. Let go of Autry and Houston, and finally this last year, we had a semblance of a pass rush with a front four. 

 

Turay, Lewis, Banogu etc. turn out to be JAGs with high draft picks blown on them. The main issue however has stemmed around the QB position. The SB teams either had their franchise QB like Mahomes whose contract could be stretched over 10 years or are working with a rookie QB in Hurts. Ballard should have ripped the band aid off the moment Rivers said he wouldn't come back, IMO, or even before Rivers was signed, and would be in a position with draft picks and possibly a rookie QB to work with and FAs to work around that. Instead, kicking the can down the road has cost him and the Colts dearly.

 

 

They made the playoffs with Rivers.  They thought they were close and they were.  Ballard trusted the judgment of his coach, a former quarterback himself, that they could win with Wentz and even Ryan for that matter.  Hard to fault them for thinking that.  Trying to trade up in the draft after making the playoffs and ripping the Band Aid off at that time was not where the organization wanted to go.  That’s just not on Ballard.  That was an organizational decision.  So it is what it is.  I just hope whoever winds up as the quarterback this year is really the guy.  So easy to miss with even a top four pick.

 

 

 

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

24 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Yes, but he is partially aggressive compared to the SB teams. The main issue is the number of difference makers drafted. Too many misses for my liking that have not been compensated by FA signings. Let go of Autry and Houston, and finally this last year, we had a semblance of a pass rush with a front four. 

 

Turay, Lewis, Banogu etc. turn out to be JAGs with high draft picks blown on them. The main issue however has stemmed around the QB position. The SB teams either had their franchise QB like Mahomes whose contract could be stretched over 10 years or are working with a rookie QB in Hurts. Ballard should have ripped the band aid off the moment Rivers said he wouldn't come back, IMO, or even before Rivers was signed, and would be in a position with draft picks and possibly a rookie QB to work with and FAs to work around that. Instead, kicking the can down the road has cost him and the Colts dearly.

 

 

Lewis is a very good player. He just has had a hard time staying healthy.

[Superman]

Cool. Now do one for all the teams that went aggressive and flamed out.

[chad72]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

Cool. Now do one for all the teams that went aggressive and flamed out.

 

Like the Jaguars that win every year in March till they got Pederson this year and had a run in 2017.  

[DougDew]

15 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

 Ballard trusted the judgment of his coach, a former quarterback himself, that they could win with Wentz and even Ryan for that matter.

Fabrication to protect Ballard.  There is zero evidence that Frank influenced Ballard on the Ryan deal.  In fact, its been reported that Irsay told Ballard to up his offer for Ryan...which was finally a third round pick.

 

Obviously, Frank did not pound his fists in protest, but to suggest Ballard listened to Frank's opinion about Ryan at the time of the trade is just not evident.

 

BTW, listening to Frank's opinion about winning with Rivers actually worked well.

[chad72]

17 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Lewis is a very good player. He just has had a hard time staying healthy.

 

Turay had that on his resume coming out of college too. Lewis and Campbell did not, just bad luck on both fronts.

 

However, it is time for a fresh start with a rookie QB and innovative offensive play calling and significant player development across positions. Can't keep holding on to roster spots with players not being available, have to make tough decisions. People forget that the Chiefs hit on a lot of their draft picks and those draft picks were developed by the coaches well over the course of the year. That is, the draft, is still the life blood of any team for sustained winning.

 

Eagles - you have Bradberry, Hargrave, their guard Isaac Seumalo, C J Gardner Johnson all as free agents and it is pretty much impossible to bring all of them back, knowing they will pay Hurts after 2023 season. Bengals - once they pay Burrow and Higgins, hard to bring Bates, Von Bell, Hayden Hurst, Tre Flowers all back, and they have to run around and pay Chase, and might face a decision like the Chiefs did with Hill.

 

Chiefs - in fact have a greater chance of sustained winning because they have actually HIT on their draft picks and now that they have shown they can get journeymen like JuJu, MVS for 1 or 2 year deals and make it work with Mahomes, have a greater chance of success, IMO. Bengals have also drafted well to stockpile talent. 

[chad72]

Ballard has the right idea - hit on the QB and get the OL in shape, and expect the QB to make those 2nd rounders and 3rd rounders good. Burrow and the Bengals will soon have to do that because retaining both Higgins and Chase along with Burrow, will not give them the luxury of the best OL and it will be like Peyton's team construction all over again while the Chiefs have a LOT invested in their OL and soon will pay Orlando Brown too, so skill positions and draft picks, they will be mixing and matching as years go on as long as Mahomes and Reid are together. If the right opportunity comes along like the Titans GM being dumb enough to trade A J Brown, you take it.  

 

We need to hit on the draft, period, routinely over the next couple of years to get more starters for the future with good player development from the coaches. That hitting on the draft part and player development part, has been overall less stellar under Ballard's regime.

[Defjamz26]

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

Silly.

It’s true. Buckner was already a pro bowl caliber player when we traded for him. Aggressive would have been saving that pick and using it and other draft capital to go and get one of the QBs in the 2020 draft.

 

Trading for Wentz (a conditional 2nd and a 3rd) isn’t as aggressive as trading up to go get Fields would have been.

 

We traded a 3rd round pick for Ryan who was past his prime. That’s not aggressive at all. That’s maintaining status quo.

 

Moving up for Taylor? Sure that was aggressive but let’s not act like teams don’t trade up in the 2nd round all the time.

 

The truth is that very few of his moves have had any significant risk factor.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

It’s true. Buckner was already a pro bowl caliber player when we traded for him. Aggressive would have been saving that pick and using it and other draft capital to go and get one of the QBs in the 2020 draft.

 

Trading for Wentz (a conditional 2nd and a 3rd) isn’t as aggressive as trading up to go get Fields would have been.

 

We traded a 3rd round pick for Ryan who was past his prime. That’s not aggressive at all. That’s maintaining status quo.

 

Moving up for Taylor? Sure that was aggressive but let’s not act like teams don’t trade up in the 2nd round all the time.

 

The truth is that very few of his moves have had any significant risk factor.

 

Trading a first for an established player and giving him a new contract absolutely qualifies as an aggressive move. We're praising Howie Roseman for doing this with AJ Brown, but diminishing it when the Colts did it for Buckner? 

 

It's not the same level of aggressiveness as moving up for a QB, nor is it as risky. It's still aggressive, and risky. Same is true for signing Rivers, and trading for Wentz. 

[chad72]

31 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

It’s true. Buckner was already a pro bowl caliber player when we traded for him. Aggressive would have been saving that pick and using it and other draft capital to go and get one of the QBs in the 2020 draft.

 

Trading for Wentz (a conditional 2nd and a 3rd) isn’t as aggressive as trading up to go get Fields would have been.

 

We traded a 3rd round pick for Ryan who was past his prime. That’s not aggressive at all. That’s maintaining status quo.

 

Moving up for Taylor? Sure that was aggressive but let’s not act like teams don’t trade up in the 2nd round all the time.

 

The truth is that very few of his moves have had any significant risk factor.

 

Wentz trade had a higher risk factor because of the 1st rounder given up for a shakier player compared to Buckner or compared to Matt Ryan, IMO.

 

[throwing BBZ]

17 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

It’s true. Buckner was already a pro bowl caliber player when we traded for him. Aggressive would have been saving that pick and using it and other draft capital to go and get one of the QBs in the 2020 draft.

 

Trading for Wentz (a conditional 2nd and a 3rd) isn’t as aggressive as trading up to go get Fields would have been.

 

We traded a 3rd round pick for Ryan who was past his prime. That’s not aggressive at all. That’s maintaining status quo.

 

Moving up for Taylor? Sure that was aggressive but let’s not act like teams don’t trade up in the 2nd round all the time.

 

The truth is that very few of his moves have had any significant risk factor.

 

  You and your kind keep bringing up how Miami or San Diego were willing to NOT draft THEIR Franchise QB that year. You are out in left field on this.

 Move on because you are WRONG. Complain about something real! 

[Defjamz26]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Trading a first for an established player and giving him a new contract absolutely qualifies as an aggressive move. We're praising Howie Roseman for doing this with AJ Brown, but diminishing it when the Colts did it for Buckner? 

 

It's not the same level of aggressiveness as moving up for a QB, nor is it as risky. It's still aggressive, and risky. Same is true for signing Rivers, and trading for Wentz. 

Brown plays a premium position and had some issues staying on the field. There was risk involved with that but that was a trade for a player that has more of an impact because the position he plays.

 

Yes Buckner makes a huge impact on the field because he’s a good player, but there isn’t a person here who wouldn’t rather have a WR, LT, or Edge Rusher of the same or greater caliber as him. So trading for AJ Brown or Tyreek Hill is much more aggressive than trading for Buckner. Most of the playoff teams had elite receiver rooms and average DTs.

[NewColtsFan]

58 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Fabrication to protect Ballard.  There is zero evidence that Frank influenced Ballard on the Ryan deal.  In fact, its been reported that Irsay told Ballard to up his offer for Ryan...which was finally a third round pick.

 

Obviously, Frank did not pound his fists in protest, but to suggest Ballard listened to Frank's opinion about Ryan at the time of the trade is just not evident.

 

BTW, listening to Frank's opinion about winning with Rivers actually worked well.

“Is just not evident”.  ???

 

What am I not understanding?  Frank wanted Ryan.   Ballard wanted Ryan.   Ballard made the trade.    Isn’t that as evident as it gets?    

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Brown plays a premium position and had some issues staying on the field. There was risk involved with that but that was a trade for a player that has more of an impact because the position he plays.

 

Yes Buckner makes a huge impact on the field because he’s a good player, but there isn’t a person here who wouldn’t rather have a WR, LT, or Edge Rusher of the same or greater caliber as him. So trading for AJ Brown or Tyreek Hill is much more aggressive than trading for Buckner. Most of the playoff teams had elite receiver rooms and average DTs.

 

Positional value and impact is part of a totally different conversation, and has very little bearing on whether trading for a player should be considered aggressive. If you trade a 1st for a punter, it's aggressive (and probably stupid, but still aggressive). It's certainly not risk averse, as you're trying to categorize it. The Buckner move was absolutely aggressive, and belongs in the conversation with the AJ Brown move, as it's basically the same thing.

 

And while, in a vacuum, trading up for a QB in 2020 would have been the more aggressive move, I could argue that signing Rivers was just as risky. He was 39, coming off of a bad season, switching teams for the first time in his career. He played well enough, but then retired, and so was a bit of a sunk cost.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

“Is just not evident”.  ???

 

What am I not understanding?  Frank wanted Ryan.   Ballard wanted Ryan.   Ballard made the trade.    Isn’t that as evident as it gets?    

 

It's obvious that Reich told Ballard 'I think Ryan can still play, and we can win with him.' If Reich was saying 'ehh, he looks kind of done, and I think I'd rather have Baker Mayfield,' I think we would have gone in a different direction.

 

I don't put that all on Reich, but no doubt he fully endorsed the Ryan move.

[throwing BBZ]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Fabrication to protect Ballard.  There is zero evidence that Frank influenced Ballard on the Ryan deal.  In fact, its been reported that Irsay told Ballard to up his offer for Ryan...which was finally a third round pick.

 

Obviously, Frank did not pound his fists in protest, but to suggest Ballard listened to Frank's opinion about Ryan at the time of the trade is just not evident.

 

BTW, listening to Frank's opinion about winning with Rivers actually worked well.

 

  Evidence, i don't need no stinkin' evidence.

 Simple common sense says that Irsay does nothing regarding Ryan without Frank giving Ryan a hard look with a thumbs up.

 So any aggression using draft capital wold originate from the strength of Reichs evalation.

I still haven't given in to the "Irsay is nutts" theme. lol

[LJpalmbeacher2]

It's easier to be aggressive when you know the Football Gods have your back......and the Refs. 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

I don't know how much 'who' wanted Ryan, it was just after dumping wentz without 'Plan B' to replace him they were desperate for a QB, any QB..... and then Ryan became available and they took a shot because there weren't many other options. 

[philba101]

52 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I don’t think the criticism that Ballard is not aggressive holds much water.  The moves did not all work out but he has been aggressive.  He made an aggressive move in trading for Wentz and Ryan both quarterbacks his coach thought he could win with.  He traded a 1st rd pick for Buckner which was the 13th pick and that worked out fine.  He didn’t sit there and wait for JT to fall to him he aggressively made the trade to move up and get him.  Last year he traded a future 3rd to get Nick Cross.  Oh and he traded Sin to get an ER in Yannick and he led the team in sacks.  Saying Ballard is not aggressive and doesn’t take swings is really way off the mark and not a fair criticism at all.  He has definitely taken plenty of swings.

As you pointed out, Ballard has made several moves in his time as GM. So it is not necessarily that he hasn't been aggressive, it is that he rarely swings for the fences in his moves. Think trading for Wentz and Ryan which he did, instead of Brady and Stafford. He traded the 13th pick in 2020 for DeForest Buckner when the team needed a QB. I love DeForest Buckner and he is a great player, but he did not change the course of our team in a way that brought us to the championship level. I would have preferred that Ballard use that pick and others to trade up to draft one of the 5 QB's who were drafted in the first two rounds that year. The decision not to do that put us on our current QB carousel. Not once in 6 seasons has Ballard every acquired a splash offensive weapon via free agency like an A.J. Brown. Not once in six years, (until acquiring Moss this year), did Ballard ever make a big move at the NFL Trade Deadline. Even in years when we had a lot of salary cap money, Ballard always shopped the free agent bargain bin (yes I understand that spending big money doesn't always yield results, either way, it is a measured response). Ballard himself even admitted that he has been reluctant to swing big when drafting a rookie at QB, for fear he will lose his job if he doesn't get it right. He also admitted that Matt Ryan fell into our laps last year after we waited a long time and didn't acquire QB early in free agency. Ballard has a conservative philosophy. His transactions have been very measured over the years. He has had some successes along with his failures as you stated. But, I have not seen him swing for the fences yet. Swinging for the fences does not guarantee that we will become a contender, but as Howie Roseman stated, I would rather swing for the fences and risk ending up on the wrong side of it, as opposed to not swinging at all and ending up average or worse.

[Nickster]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

Cool. Now do one for all the teams that went aggressive and flamed out.

Would've been more fun to follow that than what has happened to us.  This steady decline into the abyss.  I guess Ballard is the best 4 win GM in the league.

This team is out of excuses.  It's in a bad place and it will take likely at least 2 years to begin dig out of it if we pick the right QB.

 

The PR and rep around the game is in shambles. 

 

The ship is sunk.  Our highest paid guys almost to a man are on bloated, untradeable contracts and are injured and/or underproductive.

 

It's a pretty ugly situation.  This slow build has been allowed to slowly unravel and it looks like we are endorsing the slowness by possibly operating as if we have the type of core that can compete already on the roster. 

 

Supe, I'm afraid if we don't get aggressive, we are going to be sitting on many players who will be cut after receiving unwise amounts of salary allocation. I thought we might be in the hell of mediocrity, but it looks like we might be reduced to the Hell of sucking because we don't have the talent to be mediocre and might not be in the mindset that it's time to build a new vessel and sale in a different direction.  

 

If we get lucky and draft a franchise QB that quickly contributes, then a lot of this would resolve itself, but if not (and to me the history of the league when it comes to QBs shows it's more likely to be a not) I think we are continuing to prolong the turnaround.  I've been posting for a few seasons that we seemed to making moves that were prolonging the inevitable,  but we are at the inevitable and I hope we act like it.  It's time for a new approach.   At least that's what the evidence appears to be suggesting to me. 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

You want aggressive? How about when Grigson traded a first round pick for Trent Richardson? You can be aggressive in a bad way too, never forget….

[chad72]

11 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I thought we might be in the hell of mediocrity, but it looks like we might be reduced to the Hell of sucking because we don't have the talent to be mediocre and might not be in the mindset that it's time to build a new vessel and sail in a different direction.  

 

 

Nailed it. Unless the drafted QB and picks contribute over the next year or two and a few approaches change, mediocrity is the ceiling with sucking for a floor.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Fabrication to protect Ballard.  There is zero evidence that Frank influenced Ballard on the Ryan deal.  In fact, its been reported that Irsay told Ballard to up his offer for Ryan...which was finally a third round pick.

 

Obviously, Frank did not pound his fists in protest, but to suggest Ballard listened to Frank's opinion about Ryan at the time of the trade is just not evident.

 

BTW, listening to Frank's opinion about winning with Rivers actually worked well.

Ballard was widely praised for that Ryan deal. And most of this forum (and Colts content creators) praised Ballard for how he stole Wentz from Roseman. Just read a handful of comments here:

Now, after those experiments failed, Reich gets the blame. 
 

And I agree re: Rivers. If not for Reich having that connection, Ballard likely doesn’t have a single post-Luck playoff appearance. And maybe even a losing record in 3/4 years. 
 

But Ballard is here to stay. So I hope he gets this QB pick right: I just get tired of how people deflect blame. Ballard gets credit for moves that work (as he should), but somehow escapes blame for ones that don’t. 

[rockywoj]

3 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Yada yada yada Ballards LUCK Quit and went home.

 Ballard failed horribly drafting DE's, lost big time with the Campbell pick, his philosophy of big WR'S, and corners has proved HE can't team build that way.

 What the... with Pryor AND Pinter?

 Irsay/Ballard.... remind me of Jerry Jones.  This is an evaluation period on their thinking and Leadership. 

Re: The Campbell pick, I recall all the chatter around how it was Reich pounding the desk and lobbying HARD for Campbell. Obviously the staff including Ballard were impressed by Campbell as a prospect, but it was Reich that was uber pressing for Campbell to be the selection.  Hence, once again it was the GM making the call to get the player the coach so badly wants.  A process I am ok with … you hire the coach, coach says what he wants and needs, so you give the coach that he asks for. Thus, falls on the coach if it fails.  To my knowledge, Rivers, Wentz, Ryan, and Campbell were all Reich desires. 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

“Is just not evident”.  ???

 

What am I not understanding?  Frank wanted Ryan.   Ballard wanted Ryan.   Ballard made the trade.    Isn’t that as evident as it gets?    

The poster made it sound like the Ryan get was being driven the same way as the Rivers and Wentz gets.  Ryan was a late add to the QB mix that not one person seem to drive, other than Irsay wanting Ballard to up the offer.   No evidence that Frank was driving the Ryan bus.

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Would've been more fun to follow that than what has happened to us.  This steady decline into the abyss.  I guess Ballard is the best 4 win GM in the league.

This team is out of excuses.  It's in a bad place and it will take likely at least 2 years to begin dig out of it if we pick the right QB.

 

The PR and rep around the game is in shambles. 

 

The ship is sunk.  Our highest paid guys almost to a man are on bloated, untradeable contracts and are injured and/or underproductive.

 

It's a pretty ugly situation.  This slow build has been allowed to slowly unravel and it looks like we are endorsing the slowness by possibly operating as if we have the type of core that can compete already on the roster. 

 

Supe, I'm afraid if we don't get aggressive, we are going to be sitting on many players who will be cut after receiving unwise amounts of salary allocation. I thought we might be in the hell of mediocrity, but it looks like we might be reduced to the Hell of sucking because we don't have the talent to be mediocre and might not be in the mindset that it's time to build a new vessel and sale in a different direction.  

 

If we get lucky and draft a franchise QB that quickly contributes, then a lot of this would resolve itself, but if not (and to me the history of the league when it comes to QBs shows it's more likely to be a not) I think we are continuing to prolong the turnaround.  I've been posting for a few seasons that we seemed to making moves that were prolonging the inevitable,  but we are at the inevitable and I hope we act like it.  It's time for a new approach.   At least that's what the evidence appears to be suggesting to me. 

 

Who cares if it works, or if it's even a good team building strategy. Did you have fun doing it? That's all that matters... 

 

I disagree with lots of what you've said above. But to the point, propping up a couple of aggressive GMs in the SB as being the model misses the fact that there are tons of aggressive GMs who sink their teams, get fired, and are never heard from again. I don't even think the Chiefs belong in this conversation. Their most aggressive move recently was to get rid of a player at one of these perceived premium positions. The Frank Clark trade was four years ago.

 

Bigger picture, I agree that the Colts have to take bigger swings at times, and will have to make better use of their cap space to compete in the current NFL landscape. I agree that a slow build with few chances taken is probably not going to get your team to the SB; for this to work, you basically have to draft perfectly, and avoid injuries, and neither of those things are likely to happen in the NFL, let alone both at the same time. Ballard has to make some changes in his process, or we'll have trouble even competing in the division, much less making a SB.

 

That doesn't mean recklessness will be rewarded. Recent NFL history is littered with teams that messed themselves up by pushing all in with the wrong players. But people only seem to pay attention to the success stories, while ignoring the bodies laid out behind them.

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Positional value and impact is part of a totally different conversation, and has very little bearing on whether trading for a player should be considered aggressive. If you trade a 1st for a punter, it's aggressive (and probably stupid, but still aggressive). It's certainly not risk averse, as you're trying to categorize it. The Buckner move was absolutely aggressive, and belongs in the conversation with the AJ Brown move, as it's basically the same thing.

 

And while, in a vacuum, trading up for a QB in 2020 would have been the more aggressive move, I could argue that signing Rivers was just as risky. He was 39, coming off of a bad season, switching teams for the first time in his career. He played well enough, but then retired, and so was a bit of a sunk cost.

 

Not saying you don't have a reasonable argument here, I just disagree with the reasoning. Higher impact positions are almost always liable to a bigger range of contribution to winning.  Both good and bad. 

 

 

 

 

[shasta519]

26 minutes ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

You want aggressive? How about when Grigson traded a first round pick for Trent Richardson? You can be aggressive in a bad way too, never forget….

It was a bad move, but I don’t know how “aggressive” it was.

 

Vick Ballard had just tore his ACL in the first game and the Colts were coming off an 11-win season in Luck’s rookie year…poised to win now.

 

TRich was the #3 pick in the prior year’s draft and had basically three years on a rookie deal left.
 

Was as much of a necessity as it was aggressive. Just really bad evaluation from Grigson on down. 

 

 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Nickster said:

 

Not saying you don't have a reasonable argument here, I just disagree with the reasoning. Higher impact positions are almost always liable to a bigger range of contribution to winning.  Both good and bad. 

 

Yet the Chiefs third best player is a DT, the Rams best player was a DT... I don't agree with the perception that DT isn't a high impact position, and if I have to choose between a dominant DT or a dominant WR, historically, I'm definitely going DT. Over the last couple years, maybe it's more of a conversation.

 

Still, this has no bearing on the level of risk and aggression represented by the Buckner trade vs the AJ Brown trade. They're the same thing.