Is your view of Ballard changing?

[jvan1973]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'm 100% correct.  They do stereotype.  Stereotyping (in a pejorative way) is precisely why they use the term game manager.

 

Like I said, the pundits use the term game manager as a backhanded way of saying that the QB is limited to basically dinking and dunking, etc. because of physical limitations.  They use it as a pejorative, but stop short of applying it to other QBs that have the exact same skill set....like Hurts, or Bryce Young for that matter....because of the pejorative way they typically use the term.

 

I use it as an objective description of physical skills.  Purdy, Hurts, Young, and Bennett all being game managers, with Bennett probably having the best set of physical QBing skills.  Skills that would not limit him to being a dink and dunker, etc.

 

Purdy is 1st in the NFL in yards per attempt. 

 

Hurts is 9th.   Not really dink and dunkers

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

How do we know Josh backed out over worries about Luck?    The views back then were that (A) Kraft convinced him Irsay was crazy, and (B) Kraft gave him a new huge deal to return as the OC.  

That's the opinion others are asserting, for which I commented on.  Ask them why they think it.  I have no idea.

 

But if it is true, its a feather in Josh's cap and McDaniels simply backed out on Ballard for very good reason....he didn't shaft him....so McDaniels acting intelligently can't really be used as an excuse for Ballard's early failure.   Follow?

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Purdy is 1st in the NFL in yards per attempt. 

 

Hurts is 9th.   Not really dink and dunkers

Don't tell me, tell that to the draft analysts with how they described Purdy's physical gifts.   And Hurts' arm talent coming out of college.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'm 100% correct.  They do stereotype.  Stereotyping (in a pejorative way) is precisely why they use the term game manager.

 

Like I said, the pundits use the term game manager as a backhanded way of saying that the QB is limited to basically dinking and dunking, etc. because of physical limitations.  They use it as a pejorative, but stop short of applying it to other QBs that have the exact same skill set....like Hurts, or Bryce Young for that matter....because of the pejorative way they typically use the term.

 

I use it as an objective description of physical skills.  Purdy, Hurts, Young, and Bennett all being game managers, with Bennett probably having the best set of physical QBing skills.  Skills that would not limit him to being a dink and dunker, etc.

 

 

Based on this, you seem to think that the only way a person could disagree with you about Hurts being a franchise QB is if they've simply stereotyped him to reach that conclusion. A reasonable person could not simply disagree with your conclusion because they see Hurts differently than you do?

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

We don't. Unlike Dougdew, I'll admit it's just my opinion and provide the links to the rumors going on at the time.

 

That's fair.

[ColtStrong2013]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

That's the opinion others are asserting, for which I commented on.  Ask them why they think it.  I have no idea.

 

But if it is true, its a feather in Josh's cap and McDaniels simply backed out on Ballard for very good reason....he didn't shaft him....so McDaniels acting intelligently can't really be used as an excuse for Ballard's early failure.   Follow?

You should read the followups before posting...

 

[NewColtsFan]

17 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

We don't. Unlike Dougdew, I'll admit it's just my opinion and provide the links to the rumors going on at the time. There were question marks with Luck's health as well as his commitment to Indianapolis. 

 

See my above response to Doug regarding my call into Boston radio. I'm well aware of what happened. I just don't buy that there was anything the Patriots were going to offer as an OC to compare to HC for a team with Andrew Luck on roster... unless he was very uncertain on Luck's future. Just my two cents.

There were rumors of Lucks commitment to the Colts?    Huh?    What rumors?   I’m here 365 days a year and I don’t recall those rumors.    The rumors were about his health, not about his commitment. 

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Based on this, you seem to think that the only way a person could disagree with you about Hurts being a franchise QB is if they've simply stereotyped him to reach that conclusion. A reasonable person could not simply disagree with your conclusion because they see Hurts differently than you do?

This convo is based upon NCF's assertion that I was using the term incorrectly, based upon how the general football culture uses it.  And I was pointing out that they seem to use the term pejoratively......while I was not.

 

So we have to ask why they use it that way, and what keeps them from applying the same term to QBs who have the same level of physical QB talent.  Stereotyping would be one reason, and I can't think of any others at the moment.  

 

All I've done here, is to call Hurts a game manager (talent wise) QB.  The rest seem to be commenting upon how other comments were phrased. 

[ColtStrong2013]

23 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is a conclusion not based on any reported facts. Ballard was asked about this at his intro presser, and he all but refuted it.

 

The conclusion about McDaniels backing out because of uncertainty with Luck is also not based on any reported facts. And frankly, it attempts to provide cover for one of the most cowardly actions I can remember seeing from a HC candidate, so I'm personally inclined to reject it with prejudice.

 

It's my conclusion based on the fact that Ballard declined interviews with many teams prior to 2017, including the Bears in 2015 and 49ers in 2017 before the Colts job opened.

He preferred to stay in the midwest, but those teams didn't have a longterm franchise qb (or the ability to draft a legitimate option in the forseeable future). 

 

https://www.espn.co.uk/blog/san-francisco-49ers/post/_/id/23134/new-colts-gm-chris-ballard-passed-on-49ers-to-stay-in-midwest

 

Here's one article that states what Ballard states his reasoning being the location. But the article says that having Andrew Luck definitely didn't hurt with the 49ers nowhere near figuring their situation out. 

I can't find a link, and it might have been an interview that he said this, but Ballard once said that John Dorsey preached to him patience. Not only with roster building and player development, but especially with GM jobs. It has to be right, and that would definitely include having a franchise qb or the ability to draft one. It's the most important position in sports as we've all seen. It's ludicrous to think that Andrew Luck didn't have a major impact on Chris Ballard taking this job. 

[RollerColt]

20 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'm 100% correct.  They do stereotype.  Stereotyping (in a pejorative way) is precisely why they use the term game manager.

 

Like I said, the pundits use the term game manager as a backhanded way of saying that the QB is limited to basically dinking and dunking, etc. because of physical limitations.  They use it as a pejorative, but stop short of applying it to other QBs that have the exact same skill set....like Hurts, or Bryce Young for that matter....because of the pejorative way they typically use the term.

 

I use it as an objective description of physical skills.  Purdy, Hurts, Young, and Bennett all being game managers, with Bennett probably having the best set of physical QBing skills.  Skills that would not limit him to being a dink and dunker, etc.

 

 What on Earth? Now you’re putting Hurts in the same category as Bennett (who’s not even a starter) and Young (he’s yet to prove anything)? 
 

I’m not seeing these physical limitations you’re talking about. Hurts is able to push the ball downfield when he wants. Young so far has not shown that ability. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

This convo is based upon NCF's assertion that I was using the term incorrectly, based upon how the general football culture uses it.  And I was pointing out that they seem to use the term pejoratively......while I was not.

 

So we have to ask why they use it that way, and what keeps them from applying the same term to QBs who have the same level of physical QB talent.  Stereotyping would be one reason, and I can't think of any others at the moment.  

 

So NCF says you're wrong about Hurts being a game manager, then you say that everyone who thinks Hurts isn't a game manager is wrong, and is stereotyping. And that's where I'm hopping in. 

 

My question is whether you think it's possible for a reasonable person to see Jalen Hurts as franchise QB without stereotyping. The bolded seems like your answer is no.

[RollerColt]

Just now, Superman said:

 

So NCF says you're wrong about Hurts being a game manager, then you say that everyone who thinks Hurts isn't a game manager is wrong, and is stereotyping. And that's where I'm hopping in. 

 

My question is whether you think it's possible for a reasonable person to see Jalen Hurts as franchise QB without stereotyping. The bolded seems like your answer is no.

I’d love an explanation as to how I’m stereotyping by thinking Hurts is a franchise QB…

[ColtStrong2013]

6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

There were rumors of Lucks commitment to the Colts?    Huh?    What rumors?   I’m here 365 days a year and I don’t recall those rumors.    The rumors were about his health, not about his commitment. 

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20692318/andrew-luck-committed-indianapolis-colts-agent-says

 

Absolutely. There was plenty...

[NewColtsFan]

16 minutes ago, DougDew said:

That's the opinion others are asserting, for which I commented on.  Ask them why they think it.  I have no idea.

 

But if it is true, its a feather in Josh's cap and McDaniels simply backed out on Ballard for very good reason....he didn't shaft him....so McDaniels acting intelligently can't really be used as an excuse for Ballard's early failure.   Follow?

No.   Not at all.   All I see is you writing about McDaniels being intelligent and Ballard’s failures.   You keep selling this.  
 

We’ve talked about this before.   When you get passive-aggressive.   This is a classic example.   You push this narrative as if it’s true, then proclaim it’s not me, it’s other posters, or it’s not me, it’s the media.   
 

Sorry, Philly thinks Hurts is a franchise quarterback.   Thats why they pay him as they do.   The Giants and Seahawks think their guy is a game manager, that’s why they pay their guy much much less.  I think you’re way over-thinking this.

 

Im sorry. 

[RollerColt]

 

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

It's my conclusion based on the fact that Ballard declined interviews with many teams prior to 2017, including the Bears in 2015 and 49ers in 2017 before the Colts job opened.

He preferred to stay in the midwest, but those teams didn't have a longterm franchise qb (or the ability to draft a legitimate option in the forseeable future). 

 

https://www.espn.co.uk/blog/san-francisco-49ers/post/_/id/23134/new-colts-gm-chris-ballard-passed-on-49ers-to-stay-in-midwest

 

Here's one article that states what Ballard states his reasoning being the location. But the article says that having Andrew Luck definitely didn't hurt with the 49ers nowhere near figuring their situation out. 

I can't find a link, and it might have been an interview that he said this, but Ballard once said that John Dorsey preached to him patience. Not only with roster building and player development, but especially with GM jobs. It has to be right, and that would definitely include having a franchise qb or the ability to draft one. It's the most important position in sports as we've all seen. It's ludicrous to think that Andrew Luck didn't have a major impact on Chris Ballard taking this job. 

 

My disagreement here is very narrow in scope. I can understand and logically follow why anyone would think that Ballard pursued the Colts job because of Luck. It's not an outrageous opinion to hold.

 

What I'm saying is that this conclusion is based on rumor and supposition, not any reported fact. It's true that Ballard decided not to pursue previous opportunities, and was purposefully patient. That could be based on a variety of factors -- location, ownership, franchise history, personal history (did he want to be back in Chicago?), etc. 

 

But this discussion is boiling Ballard's pursuit of the Colts job down to just one factor -- the QB -- and doing the same with McDaniels' decision to back out of the Colts job down to that one, same factor. And I think that when a person presents these viewpoints, it should be done with appropriate respect for the fact that neither viewpoint is established fact. 

 

That might seem petty and pedantic to point out, but I think it's important to acknowledge.

 

7 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

I’d love an explanation as to how I’m stereotyping by thinking Hurts is a franchise QB…

 

Careful what you ask for...

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So NCF says you're wrong about Hurts being a game manager, then you say that everyone who thinks Hurts isn't a game manager is wrong, and is stereotyping. And that's where I'm hopping in. 

 

My question is whether you think it's possible for a reasonable person to see Jalen Hurts as franchise QB without stereotyping. The bolded seems like your answer is no.

Sure I do, they can certainly think of Hurts as a franchise Qb based upon how they define that term.

 

But I would say that the people who use the term "game manager" to describe a QB with limited physical talent (like the entire football pundit world) would be hypocritical to not apply it to Hurts and his physical talents.  Stereotyping can drive hypocrisy, but I guess other things can drive it too.

 

Again, Hurts is a great QB and a winner, but having elite....typically franchise.... QB physical skills is not really him.  

 

Lawrence, as an example, has those skills, but lacks other things Hurts possesses.

[NewColtsFan]

7 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20692318/andrew-luck-committed-indianapolis-colts-agent-says

 

Absolutely. There was plenty...

Great….   Now I have to deal with silly rumors that turned out to be 100 percent WRONG!

 

 SMDH.    

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Sure I do, they can certainly think of Hurts as a franchise Qb based upon how they define that term.

 

But I would say that the people who use the term "game manager" to describe a QB with limited physical talent (like the entire football pundit world) would be hypocritical to not apply it to Hurts and his physical talents.  Stereotyping can drive hypocrisy, but I guess other things can drive it too.

 

So if you call Purdy a game manager, but not Hurts, it's either stereotyping or it's hypocrisy? 

 

How about if a person simply disagrees with your conclusion that game manager = QB with limited physical talent? What if a person's determination of game manager vs franchise QB is about how he plays and produces, and not strictly about his physical talent? What if they view Hurts and Purdy differently because they see differences in the way they play? 

[DougDew]

25 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

 What on Earth? Now you’re putting Hurts in the same category as Bennett (who’s not even a starter) and Young (he’s yet to prove anything)? 
 

I’m not seeing these physical limitations you’re talking about. Hurts is able to push the ball downfield when he wants. Young so far has not shown that ability. 

You're talking about winning and starting, I get that.  

 

I'm talking about physical talent.   Arm talent, velocity, hand size, making all throws, agility, and footspeed.  I'd wager that Bennett has superior physical QBing skills than Hurts.    Hurts trumps Bennett in strength.

 

And I bet some could never fathom that, or if not better, that Bennett would even be close to Hurts.

[ColtStrong2013]

9 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Great….   Now I have to deal with silly rumors that turned out to be 100 percent WRONG!

 

 SMDH.    

I don’t believe there is such thing as silly rumors of a player potentially wanting out of what is clearly a mess. Pagano/Grigson end was a MESS. 
 

Also- it would be entirely wrong if he stayed, but guess what… he didn’t. He left the business, after playing one season after that article was written. We spoiled his career so badly he left the entire business. 
 

perhaps Ballard was the reason he remained committed for 2017 and 2018, because he had a clear vision for luck’s health and future.
 

It’s not a silly rumor to me. That was smoke where everyone should have been paying more attention. I wasn’t paying attention at the time because I thought all of the rumors of his mental state and health concerns were overblown. I had a coworker that kept telling us colts fans that he was going to walk away. 
 

someone independently thinking and watching could see it coming while none of us could

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So if you call Purdy a game manager, but not Hurts, it's either stereotyping or it's hypocrisy? 

 

How about if a person simply disagrees with your conclusion that game manager = QB with limited physical talent? What if a person's determination of game manager vs franchise QB is about how he plays and produces, and not strictly about his physical talent? What if they view Hurts and Purdy differently because they see differences in the way they play? 

Physically talented wise...which is my criteria..,,,I would call Purdy a game manager. 

 

I think the pundits essentially said the same things during draft analysis.  Eeven though he won games at ISU for three years the same way he does now, they assumed he would be limited because his physical talent would not translate to the NFL.

 

...so they called him the same thing then as I do now.

 

Now they won't.  Because since they use the term pejoratively, they would look stupid if they said it now.

[RollerColt]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Physically talented wise...which is my criteria..,,,I would call Purdy a game manager. 

 

I think the pundits essentially said the same things during draft analysis (even though he won games at ISU for three years the same way he does now)...they assumed he would be limited because physical talent would not translate to the NFL.

 

...so they called him the same thing as I did.

 

Now they won't.  Because since they use the term pejoratively, they would look stupid if they said it now.

Judging someone based off of physical traits is stereotyping is it not?

[RollerColt]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You're talking about winning and starting, I get that.  

 

I'm talking about physical talent.   Arm talent, velocity, making all throws, agility, and footspeed.  I'd wager that Bennett has superior physical QBing skills than Hurts.    

 

And I bet some could never fathom that, or if not better, would even be close to Hurts.

I guess that means Brock Osweiler is a franchise QB considering he was one of the biggest and strongest. 

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

Judging someone based off of physical traits is stereotyping is it not?

Football is a physical game.  Players have to come to the field equipped with a certain level of physical traits.  Assuming someone has poor physical traits before even bothering to test them is probably due to stereotyping. 

 

What is even weirder is when the tape shows that QBs are short, but make plays, throw hard, throw well, scramble well and extend; are still assumed to have traits not suitable for the NFL beyond game manager traits....before they even test at the combine.

 

I do think that was more prevalent during the years Hurts was drafted and before, and guys like him and Purdy are probably forcing pundits to rethink that in 2023.  

 

[John Hammonds]

Um....  What does all this argument about whether or not Jalen Hurts is a "game manger" or not have to do with the OP question on whether or not our view of Ballard has changed at all?

[DougDew]

51 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

No.   Not at all.   All I see is you writing about McDaniels being intelligent and Ballard’s failures.   You keep selling this.  
 

We’ve talked about this before.   When you get passive-aggressive.   This is a classic example.   You push this narrative as if it’s true, then proclaim it’s not me, it’s other posters, or it’s not me, it’s the media.   
 

Sorry, Philly thinks Hurts is a franchise quarterback.   Thats why they pay him as they do.   The Giants and Seahawks think their guy is a game manager, that’s why they pay their guy much much less.  I think you’re way over-thinking this.

 

Im sorry. 

Good lord.  

 

Someone in this thread....not me.... asserted the idea that McDaniels backed out because he was concerned over Luck's health and energy for football.  That's not my opinion.  I've never thought that.

 

But if that is true....if that is true...accept it on its face for conversation reasons......then it was pretty astute on the part of Josh to bail for that reason, right?...because his concerns turned out to be true.

 

That's pure logic.

 

How is that me selling the idea that Josh was intelligent and Ballard failed?  Those things are based upon an opinion that someone else offered that would have to be true, which neither me or you think is true  Geez man.

 

 

[Hark]

8 minutes ago, John Hammonds said:

Um....  What does all this argument about whether or not Jalen Hurts is a "game manger" or not have to do with the OP question on whether or not our view of Ballard has changed at all?

So much this^^^^^^^

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Good lord.  

 

Someone in this thread....not me.... asserted the idea that McDaniels backed out because he was concerned over Luck's health.  That's not my opinion.  I've never thought that.

 

But if that is true....if that is true...accept it on its face for conversation reasons......then it was pretty astute on the part of Josh to bail for that reason, right...because his concerns turned out to be true.

 

That's pure logic.

 

How is that me selling the idea that Josh was intelligent and Ballard failed.  Those things are based upon an opinion that someone else offered that would have to be true, which neither me or you think is true?  Geez man.

 

 

Josh did not bail out because he was concerned over Luck.   Josh had accepted the job.   Josh and Ballard shared the same agent.   There was plenty of conversation between them.   Why, at the last minute would it suddenly occur to Josh that he should be concerned about Luck’s health?    Job interviews last hours.   You think Josh and Chris didn’t talk all about Luck?    
 

Suddenly days later, Josh is concerned enough about Luck that he backs out of his deal?   Kraft lured him back.   This wasn’t an astute move by McDaniels and a bad move by Ballard.  This was a move that was so bad,  McDaniels was fired by his own agent.  

[DougDew]

53 minutes ago, John Hammonds said:

Um....  What does all this argument about whether or not Jalen Hurts is a "game manger" or not have to do with the OP question on whether or not our view of Ballard has changed at all?

Beats me.  I think this is the comment that sparked it.  And I was talking about roster in terms of Ballard/backup QB and why Sam E is still here and might be retained.

 

Jalen Hurts does not have the best arm talent amongst NFL QBs.  He simply doesn't.  He has other things, and I'm not comparing Sam to Hurts (since I've hardly even seen Sam play for one reason), but if Sam is a runner who can't make all of the NFL throws consistently (not a wrong description of Hurts BTW), then what prevents him from being a good back up Qb on a SS team? 

 

Then another poster quoted my comment above by saying this:

 

While you’re commenting on Jalen Hurts here, perhaps this is the best opportunity to drop in this fact.   Earlier this year you called Hurts a game manager and NOT a franchise quarterback. 
 

So the convo with me focused on Hurts for what seems to be an attempted "gotcha" attempt by that poster.  When I was simply talking about Sam being a backup in a SS offense and used Hurts as an example. 

 

 

[ColtStrong2013]

9 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Josh did not bail out because he was concerned over Luck.   Josh had accepted the job.   Josh and Ballard shared the same agent.   There was plenty of conversation between them.   Why, at the last minute would it suddenly occur to Josh that he should be concerned about Luck’s health?    Job interviews last hours.   You think Josh and Chris didn’t talk all about Luck?    
 

Suddenly days later, Josh is concerned enough about Luck that he backs out of his deal?   Kraft lured him back.   This wasn’t an astute move by McDaniels and a bad move by Ballard.  This was a move that was so bad,  McDaniels was fired by his own agent.  

again- I don’t buy that he was lured back for more responsibilities and a good situation as he was more convinced it was a bad idea… so much that he was willing to be a public enemy and fired by his agent. 
 

we may never know. There’s no way he stayed oc for bill bellichick over a head coach job with Andrew luck if he was confident Luck was a longterm solution. 
 

I never said it was a bad move by Ballard. It made a lot of sense at the time. It hurt Ballard, and so did luck’s departure. 

[jvan1973]

10 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

again- I don’t buy that he was lured back for more responsibilities and a good situation as he was more convinced it was a bad idea… so much that he was willing to be a public enemy and fired by his agent. 
 

we may never know. There’s no way he stayed oc for bill bellichick over a head coach job with Andrew luck if he was confident Luck was a longterm solution. 
 

I never said it was a bad move by Ballard. It made a lot of sense at the time. It hurt Ballard, and so did luck’s departure. 

But he took two head coaching jobs with questionable qbs?  

[ColtStrong2013]

15 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

again- I don’t buy that he was lured back for more responsibilities and a good situation as he was more convinced it was a bad idea… so much that he was willing to be a public enemy and fired by his agent. 
 

we may never know. There’s no way he stayed oc for bill bellichick over a head coach job with Andrew luck if he was confident Luck was a longterm solution. 
 

I never said it was a bad move by Ballard. It made a lot of sense at the time. It hurt Ballard, and so did luck’s departure. 

my position won’t change. It’s not a debate. It never was. It was just an opinion that I offered response to when questioned. As Superman says, I’m not positioning on facts. It’s purely my opinion. You should know that if I was looking to debate about it, I’m not going to throw my opinion much into the mix. 
 

Just as Ballard took this job with the idea of Andrew Luck as his qb for a decade being (in my opinion) the main reason he took this job, I think the concerns of Luck’s health/future had a major impact on McDaniels decision to back out last minute.
 

It might not have been the only reason, but it was the one that separated from other opportunities for Ballard, and could be the deciding factor for McDaniels. Ballard wasn’t walking into a clean slate. He had a coach he was paired with, that he didn’t want. Luck was the big factor. They can both say it’s not until their face is red, but Luck was always the elephant in the room. He was the difference between a playoff win and 4/7 win seasons before and after his final season. 
 

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

15 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

again- I don’t buy that he was lured back for more responsibilities and a good situation as he was more convinced it was a bad idea… so much that he was willing to be a public enemy and fired by his agent. 
 

we may never know. There’s no way he stayed oc for bill bellichick over a head coach job with Andrew luck if he was confident Luck was a longterm solution. 
 

I never said it was a bad move by Ballard. It made a lot of sense at the time. It hurt Ballard, and so did luck’s departure. 

I was speaking to Doug, not to you.   My arguments were to Doug, not you. 
 

Im surprised you haven’t figured out yet, but we see this completely different.   That’s fine.   But you keep trying to convince me you’re right.   And I’m either not responding or I’m disagreeing.  
 

Look, you and I think you and I see most issues in a similar light.  I think you’re a very good poster.   But on this issue we’re on different sides of the argument.  We’re almost as far apart as I am with Doug, which is to say as far as can be.  
 

Sorry….   But that’s where we are. 

[ColtStrong2013]

6 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

But he took two head coaching jobs with questionable qbs?  

Isn’t it possible that he learned from his mistake as a super young coach to not rush into a gig without stability at qb, hence my opinion on Luck being a major factor? And I’m not sure he was going to get many opportunities following that decision. A lot changed with the Patriots over the years leading up to him taking the raiders job 

[ColtStrong2013]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I was speaking to Doug, not to you.   My arguments were to Doug, not you. 
 

Im surprised you haven’t figured out yet, but we see this completely different.   That’s fine.   But you keep trying to convince me you’re right.   And I’m either not responding or I’m disagreeing.  
 

Look, you and I think you and I see most issues in a similar light.  I think you’re a very good poster.   But on this issue we’re on different sides of the argument.  We’re almost as far apart as I am with Doug, which is to say as far as can be.  
 

Sorry….   But that’s where we are. 

no sorry needed. See my response following the one you quoted. 

[NewColtsFan]

4 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

my position won’t change. It’s not a debate. It never was. It was just an opinion that I offered response to when questioned. As Superman says, I’m not positioning on facts. It’s purely my opinion. You should know that if I was looking to debate about it, I’m not going to throw my opinion much into the mix. 
 

Just as Ballard took this job with the idea of Andrew Luck as his qb for a decade being (in my opinion) the main reason he took this job, I think the concerns of Luck’s health/future had a major impact on McDaniels decision to back out last minute.
 

It might not have been the only reason, but it was the one that separated from other opportunities for Ballard, and could be the deciding factor for McDaniels. Ballard wasn’t walking into a clean slate. He had a coach he was paired with, that he didn’t want. Luck was the big factor. They can both say it’s not until their face is red, but Luck was always the elephant in the room. He was the difference between a playoff win and 4/7 win seasons before and after his final season. 
 

 

 

Do you realize you just responded to a post by….    You?  
 

Just wanted to double check because I couldn’t tell the point of your double-post. 

[jvan1973]

Just now, ColtStrong2013 said:

Isn’t it possible that he learned from his mistake as a super young coach to not rush into a gig without stability at qb, hence my opinion on Luck being a major factor? And I’m not sure he was going to get many opportunities following that decision. A lot changed with the Patriots over the years leading up to him taking the raiders job 

Most head coaching jobs don't become open if there is a good QB on board.  Most newly hired HC's are inheriting a mess of some kind.   He could have stayed in New England and waited for BB to retire.  Instead he took a job with the very unstable mess that is the Raiders.    I think your view has some huge flaws

[Superman]

58 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Physically talented wise...which is my criteria..,,,I would call Purdy a game manager. 

 

I think the pundits essentially said the same things during draft analysis.  Eeven though he won games at ISU for three years the same way he does now, they assumed he would be limited because his physical talent would not translate to the NFL.

 

...so they called him the same thing then as I do now.

 

Now they won't.  Because since they use the term pejoratively, they would look stupid if they said it now.

 

I think you're pretty isolated in your thinking that game manager = physically limited QB. There can be some overlap between those two things, but the difference between being a game manager and being a franchise QB is not solely about physical limitations. 

 

And maybe the reason some people are not referring to Brock Purdy as a game manager in present time is because they think that way a QB plays and produces is the primary factor to consider, and they believe that Purdy's recent play is proving that he's more than a game manager. 

[ColtStrong2013]

7 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Most head coaching jobs don't become open if there is a good QB on board.  Most newly hired HC's are inheriting a mess of some kind.   He could have stayed in New England and waited for BB to retire.  Instead he took a job with the very unstable mess that is the Raiders.    I think your view has some huge flaws

which is why I think he bailed… It was too good to be true. and he ended up being right in that regard, if that was his thinking.

 

no way he lasted until bill retired. That’s assuming a) bill would retire (he’s not) b) they would hire him following bill’s retirement and c) McDaniels thought post Brady would be a disaster and to take the first opportunity out that he could.