Raiders request interview Colts assistant GM Ed Dodds

[NewColtsFan]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

"Hot seat" might seem kind of loaded, like he's about to get fired. I wouldn't exactly say he's on the hot seat, because I think the trajectory is favorable right now. But if the Colts sputter this season, I think things start to look different. 

 

It's the 2-3 years projection that I think is pretty much the longest anyone thinks Ballard will continue as GM if the Colts don't start some serious winning, like advancing in the playoffs. I'd say if the Colts don't win at least one playoff game over the next two seasons, Ballard is gone.

 

And I'm probably viewed as one of the more pro Ballard posters here.

I think that’s fair.  In fact it’s roughly what I’ve been trying to say to the anti-Ballard crowd for a month or so.  
 

The clock is ticking.  There needs to be good results.  And seeing as little as we did from AR this year wasn’t helpful.   He’s not a rookie next year, but he’s not a real 2nd year player either.   So it wouldn’t take much next year for Ballard’s seat to get pretty hot, pretty quickly. 

 

It’s an interesting place we find ourselves. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think that’s fair.  In fact it’s roughly what I’ve been trying to say to the anti-Ballard crowd for a month or so.  
 

The clock is ticking.  There needs to be good results.  And seeing as little as we did from AR this year wasn’t helpful.   He’s not a rookie next year, but he’s not a real 2nd year player either.   So it wouldn’t take much next year for Ballard’s seat to get pretty hot, pretty quickly. 

 

It’s an interesting place we find ourselves. 

 

I think the way forward is to proceed as if Richardson is the guy to build around. Get him what he needs to be successful, for the offense to flourish. And even if he struggles, gets benched, gets hurt, we still have some reliable playmakers on offense. But if he picks up where he left off, and actually gets it going, the offense could be dangerous.

 

I don't believe in our defensive scheme, so my perspective there is kind of skewed. I don't see how we can upgrade the defensive personnel enough to make Bradley's scheme work as well as it needs to. But if the offense can score more, and be more explosive, it takes some pressure off the defense, maybe the bend-don't-break is a little more productive if the other team knows they have to put up points.

 

So I want them to be aggressive on offense, add a dynamic WR by trade or FA, tighten up the OL and add depth, get a  healthy season out of JT, and see what Steichen's system can really do.

[CR91]

19 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Sarcasm?    Hopefully you’re kidding?   You’ve lifted the same quote from @Moosejawcolt almost exactly.  
 

I can explain if you need me to. 

 

More of an observation. I just feel like there's a lot more successful franchises to hire from. 

[DougDew]

44 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Ok, well,  I tried.   But you kept talking about these attacks on poor Moose and we both know I’m the guy who has been challenging him the most.   So let’s be up front about it.  
 

I don’t know how many of my posts about this ongoing debate you’ve read, but I’ve pretty much crushed Moose.  And you can tell that I have because I’ve addressed my posts to him directly and he’s responded exactly ZERO times.   He’ll talk to other posters, but not me.  
 

I think you’ve made a number of leaps to justify your position.  We don’t agree on anything.  I’m sorry to see that.  But I don’t see any common ground.  I gave you the easiest thing to agree with.  (Forget our viewpoints, Dodds and Brown have been interviewing for jobs for 3-4 years.  That should tell you all you need to know)  and yet you still couldn’t acknowledge that.  So I’m out of ideas.  
 

We will have to agree to disagree.  I’m sorry about that. 

The comment "Dodds was brought here to build the Legion of Doom" was vigorously criticized as being unsupported.  Personally, I use an intelligent, IMO, look at the facts to support conclusions, and don't rely upon a credentialed person with sources.  I think both how a person received their credentials and the source probably only disclosing half truths, questions that combination as being support of any kind for any topic.

 

You yourself in your passive aggressive white knighting for Ballard, said that the 2017 draft shouldn't be held against him because he relied upon Pagano's/Grigsy's staff to pick FS Hooker...a defensive player.  So when the offense is set, and Ballard hires Dodds from SEA...I would think that YOU of all people would believe that Dodds was hired from SEA to improve the selection of defensive personnel...meaning that you basically agree with the root of Moose's comments. 

 

Moose fires off a comment, and you criticize it has having no support, and that he is the only one ever to say it as if being the only one is some sort of criticism in itself...like there needs to be a certain amount of group-think critical mass for something to be basically correct.  Just think about the situation back then man. 

 

Again, I would not say it in the extreme way Moose said it, but I would think that the criticism would invite him to tone down the extremism of the comment rather than to call him "unsupported" simply because no source told a credentialed person more details about the hire.  Moose is probably more correct than incorrect about why Dodds was hired. 

 

And here we are 7 years later with a playmaker needed at any one of 10 positions on defense.  And probably more than one.  Why would Dodds get any white knight defending at all...and after 7 years here, he has earned himself an updated resume, IMO. 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

The comment "Dodds was brought here to build the Legion of Doom" was vigorously criticized as being unsupported.  Personally, I use an intelligent, IMO, look at the facts to support conclusions, and don't rely upon a credentialed person with sources.  I think both how a person received their credentials and the source probably only disclosing half truths, questions that combination as being support of any kind for any topic.

 

You yourself in your passive aggressive white knighting for Ballard, said that the 2017 draft shouldn't be held against him because he relied upon Pagano's/Grigsy's staff to pick FS Hooker...a defensive player.  So when the offense is set, and Ballard hires Dodds from SEA...I would think that YOU of all people would believe that Dodds was hired from SEA to improve the selection of defensive personnel...meaning that you basically agree with the root of Moose's comments. 

 

Moose fires off a comment, and you criticize it has having no support, and that he is the only one ever to say it as if being the only one is some sort of criticism in itself...like there needs to be a certain amount of group-think critical mass for something to be basically correct.  Just think about the situation back then man. 

 

Again, I would not say it in the extreme way Moose said it, but I would think that the criticism would invite him to tone down the extremism of the comment rather than to call him "unsupported" simply because no source told a credentialed person more details about the hire.  Moose is probably more correct than incorrect about why Dodds was hired. 

 

And here we are 7 years later with a playmaker needed at any one of 10 positions on defense.  And probably more than one.  Why would Dodds get any white knight defending at all...and after 7 years here, he has earned himself an updated resume, IMO. 

I don’t know how to break it to you, but that’s not exactly what I’ve said about the 2017 draft.   Perhaps in the first few days.  But once we found out Ballard gave Pagano what he wanted in the first three rounds, that changed.  But on balance our first three picks of the 2017 draft weren’t bad.  They were drafted where they should’ve been.  They didn’t work out for various reasons.  
 

And I’ve never said Dodds was hired to improve the defense.   Because that’s not how his job works.  He’s hired to improve ALL PARTS of the roster.  
 

And when I say Moose’s argument has no support, I’m not talking about the community here supporting him.  I’m talking about facts.  He claimed multiple times Dodds was brought here to build the Colts a Legion of Boom defense.  I called that false.  Most everyone has called that false.   He has no link, no explanation of where he got that from to support it.   He said roughly that as recently as today.  
 

You keep trying to find a way to say it’s not an unreasonable thing to say or believe.   Sorry, but YES it is.   As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, Dodds also gets credit for drafting Russell Wilson at pick 75 and for trading a 4 and 5 for Marshawn Lynch.  His job with Seattle is his same job as it is with Indy.  To find as much talent as he can for the entire roster.  Period.  Full stop. 

I appreciate that your views are not far from Moose’s views.  So you feel compelled to defend him.  That’s your call.  I’ve agreed with him several times, but they are exceptions to the rule.  
 

Again,  we don’t have much if any common ground here.   Wish it wasn’t so.  But when you can’t agree on the easy/obvious stuff then we get nowhere.   Sorry. 

[NFLfan]

On 1/29/2024 at 8:07 PM, NewColtsFan said:

No one understands talent better than Baltimore.  They are loaded.  Good choice for the chargers.   But a word of caution for their new guy….    Working WITH Jim Harbaugh will be the HARDEST job of your career.   Hope it doesn’t turn into working FOR Jim Harbaugh.  
 

Good luck!    

 

I agree 100%. I love the hire. When the Vikings fired Rick Spielman, I wanted the Vikings to hire Joe Hortiz because I like the way the Ravens build their teams. They make good use of the draft and have a good way of acquiring more draft picks by trading players or getting compensatory picks for their veterans that sign elsewhere. They don't panic and overpay players that can be replaced. (They may overpay for a guy like Lamar who is hard to replace.) They are comfortable with players leaving if the price is not right for the Ravens. The Steelers are like that too.

 

That is an excellent hire by the Chargers.

[NFLfan]

I removed the "bully" comments. There is no reason to use namecalling when engaging with others here.

 

Quit taking personal shots at others. Thanks.

[NewColtsFan]

On 2/2/2024 at 12:49 AM, ShuteAt168 said:

How are those comments contradictory? You’re so angry all the time you can’t even handle the posting of a legit question. Take a break from the forum for your own sake. 

I don’t know why you think I’m angry all the time?   But many people here have trouble reading tone into black and white text.   Also, you’re a new poster which means you have no idea of the history some of us have with each other, but you feel entitled to comment on it. 
 

I’m bothered when smart posters like you make weak arguments.   And saying if Dodds leaves maybe that will be better for Ballard is an incredibly weak argument.  And I don’t think it’s honest.   I think the inspiration for a comment like that is your very negative view of Ballard.   

[DougDew]

19 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I don’t know how to break it to you, but that’s not exactly what I’ve said about the 2017 draft.   Perhaps in the first few days.  But once we found out Ballard gave Pagano what he wanted in the first three rounds, that changed.  But on balance our first three picks of the 2017 draft weren’t bad.  They were drafted where they should’ve been.  They didn’t work out for various reasons.  
 

And I’ve never said Dodds was hired to improve the defense.   Because that’s not how his job works.  He’s hired to improve ALL PARTS of the roster.  
 

And when I say Moose’s argument has no support, I’m not talking about the community here supporting him.  I’m talking about facts.  He claimed multiple times Dodds was brought here to build the Colts a Legion of Boom defense.  I called that false.  Most everyone has called that false.   He has no link, no explanation of where he got that from to support it.   He said roughly that as recently as today.  
 

You keep trying to find a way to say it’s not an unreasonable thing to say or believe.   Sorry, but YES it is.   As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, Dodds also gets credit for drafting Russell Wilson at pick 75 and for trading a 4 and 5 for Marshawn Lynch.  His job with Seattle is his same job as it is with Indy.  To find as much talent as he can for the entire roster.  Period.  Full stop. 

I appreciate that your views are not far from Moose’s views.  So you feel compelled to defend him.  That’s your call.  I’ve agreed with him several times, but they are exceptions to the rule.  
 

Again,  we don’t have much if any common ground here.   Wish it wasn’t so.  But when you can’t agree on the easy/obvious stuff then we get nowhere.   Sorry. 

I'll try again since I can't seem to find my other comment.  And its in response mainly to what you said before :

 

The last time you wrote this I wrote a long post explaining the different ways it wasn’t true.   You either ignored the post or have forgotten it.   The claim is false.  100 percent false. No one else here subscribes to it, but some repeat it because you keep repeating it over and over and over again.  Ballard has never said it.  Dodds has never said it.  Neither has Irsay.  Did you read this?   We’ll see if you’re brave enough to answer.

 

So why is something 100% false, just because Irsay or Ballard has never said it, or that no one else here subscribes to it?

 

In this exercise, you are only allowed to use your brain.  There isn't going to be a link or a quote that will tell you exactly the way something happened.  You'll just have to figure it out for yourself.

 

Ballard drafts a single high cover 3 safety, followed by Quincy Wilson who has man coverage traits.  He then hires Flus to coach a 43 defense.  He hires a personnel guy from SEA, a team that played a 43 defense and a lot of cover 3 (so I read).  So, in your opinion, what qualified the SEA personnel guy to be qualified for the Colts hire over personnel guys from 31 other teams....what do you think was a big reason for that specific hire?  Was it to find defensive personnel similar to what they had at SEA?

 

So if you now have thought about it, instead of searching for quotes from Ballard......when someone (like Moose) says this...He was apparently brought here to replicate the Seattle D. (less bold that what I had even thought it was).....what justifies writing the kind of comment you wrote in italics above?

 

[NFLfan]

16 hours ago, DougDew said:

 

 

So is the word "bully" a problem, or should bullying without using the word be a problem?

 

It should not be confusing at all. No namecalling. That's it.

 

I'm not going to go back and forth with this. Thanks.

[jvan1973]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'll try again since I can't seem to find my other comment.  And its in response mainly to what you said before :

 

 

The last time you wrote this I wrote a long post explaining the different ways it wasn’t true.   You either ignored the post or have forgotten it.   The claim is false.  100 percent false. No one else here subscribes to it, but some repeat it because you keep repeating it over and over and over again.  Ballard has never said it.  Dodds has never said it.  Neither has Irsay.  

 

So why is something 100% false, just because Irsay or Ballard has never said it, or that no one else here subscribes to it?

 

In this exercise, you are only allowed to use your brain.  There isn't going to be a link or a quote that will tell you exactly the way something happened.  You'll just have to figure it out for yourself.

 

Ballard drafts a single high cover 3 safety, followed by Quincy Wilson who has man coverage traits.  He then hires Flus to coach a 43 defense.  He hires a personnel guy from SEA, a team that played a 43 defense and a lot of cover 3 (so I read).  So, in your opinion, what qualified the SEA personnel guy to be qualified for the Colts hire over personnel guys from 31 other teams....what do you think was a big reason for that specific hire?  Was it to find defensive personnel similar to what they had at SEA?

 

So if you now have thought about it, instead of searching for quotes from Ballard......when someone (like Moose) says this...He was apparently brought here to replicate the Seattle D. (less bold that what I had even thought it was).....what justifies writing the kind of comment you wrote in italics above?

 

Chuck Pagano was the Head Coach and Ted Monachino was the DC when Hooker was drafted.  Dodds was hired after that.   Kind of puts a wrinkle in you and Mooses theory

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Chuck Pagano was the Head Coach and Ted Monachino was the DC when Hooker was drafted.  Dodds was hired after that.   Kind of puts a wrinkle in you and Mooses theory

No it doesn't.  Hooker and Wilson had traits to play cover 3 will man coverage underneath.  An entire year before Pagano was fired, then Dodds and Flus brought in to coach players that already ha the traits.  

 

"Replicating the SEA defense" is not what I would have said.  But the idea that Dodds was lifted from SEA to identify defensive players .....when the offense already had Luck, AC, and TY.....is certainly something that is NOT 100% false simply because Ballard never said it.

[NewColtsFan]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'll try again since I can't seem to find my other comment.  And its in response mainly to what you said before :

 

The last time you wrote this I wrote a long post explaining the different ways it wasn’t true.   You either ignored the post or have forgotten it.   The claim is false.  100 percent false. No one else here subscribes to it, but some repeat it because you keep repeating it over and over and over again.  Ballard has never said it.  Dodds has never said it.  Neither has Irsay.  Did you read this?   We’ll see if you’re brave enough to answer.

 

So why is something 100% false, just because Irsay or Ballard has never said it, or that no one else here subscribes to it?

 

In this exercise, you are only allowed to use your brain.  There isn't going to be a link or a quote that will tell you exactly the way something happened.  You'll just have to figure it out for yourself.

 

Ballard drafts a single high cover 3 safety, followed by Quincy Wilson who has man coverage traits.  He then hires Flus to coach a 43 defense.  He hires a personnel guy from SEA, a team that played a 43 defense and a lot of cover 3 (so I read).  So, in your opinion, what qualified the SEA personnel guy to be qualified for the Colts hire over personnel guys from 31 other teams....what do you think was a big reason for that specific hire?  Was it to find defensive personnel similar to what they had at SEA?

 

So if you now have thought about it, instead of searching for quotes from Ballard......when someone (like Moose) says this...He was apparently brought here to replicate the Seattle D. (less bold that what I had even thought it was).....what justifies writing the kind of comment you wrote in italics above?

 

We’re getting no where.   I assume you haven’t been reading Moose’s posts where for weeks (longer?) he’s been making this assertion.   And for that length of time I’ve been explaining to him why it’s false.  

 

Or that’s you’ve joined this late and are unaware of his positions.   Line when he recently made the assertion then a few days later quoted himself (some are are saying it’s true)  no one was, which is why I said to Moose that he was literally quoting himself.  Maybe you missed all that. 
 

I’ve now explained how Dodds gets some of the credit for drafting Russel Wilson and trading for Marshawn Lynch.  And you ignore it.   I point out how Dodds followed CJ Stroud last year and you ignore that too.   Dodds was never the architect of the Legion of Boom.   I’ve now pointed out the defense the Colts run isn’t even the same as what Seattle did.  The key to that defense was the secondary.  Ballard’s emphasis on his defense has been the front 4 and one linebacker.   And you’ve ignored that too. 
 

As I said in an earlier post, you and I are not even agreeing on the easy stuff, so we’re not going to find common ground on the hard stuff. 
 

I was a writer by trade in my day, but apparently not good enough to make you understand my point of view.  I’m sorry about that.  
 

At this point, agreeing to disagree is the best we can hope for.  And Moose still hasn’t responded to my many approaches except perhaps once.   And here we are. 

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

We’re getting no where.   I assume you haven’t been reading Moose’s posts where for weeks (longer?) he’s been making this assertion.   And for that length of time I’ve been explaining to him why it’s false.  

 

Or that’s you’ve joined this late and are unaware of his positions.   Line when he recently made the assertion then a few days later quoted himself (some are are saying it’s true)  no one was, which is why I said to Moose that he was literally quoting himself.  Maybe you missed all that. 
 

I’ve now explained how Dodds gets some of the credit for drafting Russel Wilson and trading for Marshawn Lynch.  And you ignore it.   I point out how Dodds followed CJ Stroud last year and you ignore that too.   Dodds was never the architect of the Legion of Boom.   I’ve now pointed out the defense the Colts run isn’t even the same as what Seattle did.  The key to that defense was the secondary.  Ballard’s emphasis on his defense has been the front 4 and one linebacker.   And you’ve ignored that too. 
 

As I said in an earlier post, you and I are not even agreeing on the easy stuff, so we’re not going to find common ground on the hard stuff. 
 

I was a writer by trade in my day, but apparently not good enough to make you understand my point of view.  I’m sorry about that.  
 

At this point, agreeing to disagree is the best we can hope for.  And Moose still hasn’t responded to my many approaches except perhaps once.   And here we are. 

You keep repeating yourself as if your previous explanations to Moose actually solved anything.  You claim you are right, when its seems like you could be the one unsupported all along.

 

But to my question, what justifies the kind of comment you wrote?

 

And, do you think when the Colt were changing defensive schemes that required the overhaul of personnel on the defensive side, that what happened in SEA was a good resume point for Dodds over personnel guys from 31 other teams?  Afterall, we can assume that Dodds wasn't hired to find the next Russell Wilson

[jvan1973]

23 minutes ago, DougDew said:

No it doesn't.  Hooker and Wilson had traits to play cover 3 will man coverage underneath.  An entire year before Pagano was fired, then Dodds and Flus brought in to coach players that already ha the traits.  

 

"Replicating the SEA defense" is not what I would have said.  But the idea that Dodds was lifted from SEA to identify defensive players .....when the offense already had Luck, AC, and TY.....is certainly something that is NOT 100% false simply because Ballard never said it.

Pagano wanted Hooker to play the role of Ed Reed in the Ravens defense.   He and monachino ran a 3-4 defense.   Nothing like the Seattle d at all.   You and Moose can live in delusion if you like,  but nothing supports it

[NewColtsFan]

25 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You keep repeating yourself as if your previous explanations to Moose actually solved anything.  You claim you are right, when its seems like you could be the one unsupported all along.

 

But to my question, what justifies the kind of comment you wrote?

 

And, do you think when the Colt were changing defensive schemes that required the overhaul of personnel on the defensive side, that what happened in SEA was a good resume point for Dodds over personnel guys from 31 other teams?  Afterall, we can assume that Dodds wasn't hired to find the next Russell Wilson

Let’s call it a day.   Or two.   Or three.   Sorry I couldn’t make a better argument for you.   

[jvan1973]

7 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Let’s call it a day.   Or two.   Or three.   Sorry I couldn’t make a better argument for you.   

[DougDew]

29 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Pagano wanted Hooker to play the role of Ed Reed in the Ravens defense.   He and monachino ran a 3-4 defense.   Nothing like the Seattle d at all.   You and Moose can live in delusion if you like,  but nothing supports it

That's a passive way of calling us delusional, I guess.

 

They both had traits to play in a SEA defense too.  While Dodds was promoted from SEA to IND to do more than defense, finding defensive personnel was the immediate need over finding a QB, LT, or #1 WR at the time. 

 

You can't admit that simply because it might come close to supporting Moose's point? 

[NewColtsFan]

18 minutes ago, DougDew said:

That's a passive way of calling us delusional, I guess.

 

They both had traits to play in a SEA defense too.  While Dodds was promoted from SEA to IND to do more than defense, finding defensive personnel was the immediate need over finding a QB, LT, or #1 WR at the time. 

 

You can't admit that simply because it might come close to supporting Moose's point? 

The only way it comes close to supporting Moose’s point is if you completely change the point Moose has been making.  
 

Otherwise…..    no. 
 

Your defending Moose as strong as you are because your views are quite similar.   To defend Moose is to defend yourself.  

[DougDew]

28 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

The only way it comes close to supporting Moose’s point is if you completely change the point Moose has been making.  
 

Otherwise…..    no. 
 

Your defending Moose as strong as you are because your views are quite similar.   To defend Moose is to defend yourself.  

And if the point is valid, what would be wrong with a defense of it?  And why would it matter who said it...who the owner of the point is?   Why is that significant?

 

What I am pointing out is that the idea that Dodds was lifted from a defensive minded team at a time when we were going to retool the defense to run more of a 43 supports the GENERAL idea that Dodds was promoted to IND to focus on defensive acquisitions.  I'm not even commenting on whether or not he was successful.  

 

You are saying that because Ballard or Irsay or Dodds never came out and said it, that the point is 100% false.  Your comments are as extreme as what you think Moose's comments are.  Without any evidence (of the kind you expect Moose to present) to support its false, you claim it is false and say that you have been right all along.  Being named head of all personnel does not mean that defense was not his focus...at least in the beginning.

 

And you make these comments in a very confrontational, almost demeaning way.

 

That's the gist of my point.

[NewColtsFan]

18 minutes ago, DougDew said:

And if the point is valid, what would be wrong with a defense of it?  And why would it matter who said it...who the owner of the point is?   Why is that significant?

 

What I am pointing out is that the idea that Dodds was lifted from a defensive minded team at a time when we were going to retool the defense to run more of a 43 supports the GENERAL idea that Dodds was promoted to IND to focus on defensive acquisitions.  I'm not even commenting on whether or not he was successful.  

 

You are saying that because Ballard or Irsay or Dodds never came out and said it, that the point is 100% false.  Your comments are as extreme as what you think Moose's comments are.  Without any evidence (of the kind you expect Moose to present) to support its false, you claim it is false and say that you have been right all along.  Being named head of all personnel does not mean that defense was not his focus...at least in the beginning.

 

And you make these comments in a very confrontational, almost demeaning way.

 

That's the gist of my point.

The entire second paragraph is false.   That’s not the way jobs are run.   You and Moose keep insisting that Dodds was brought here to focus on defense as opposed to brought here to focus on the entire team.   That’s just not the way Dodd’s job is done.  
 

And let’s not kid ourselves.   Dodds and Brown have been interviewing for jobs for 3-4 years and neither of you have ever brought this up before.   But Moose brings it up now due to the weirdness of the last two years.   2022:  4-12-1 and 2023:  led to a 9-8 season with a backup.    Why wasn’t this brought up before?   
 

As to who makes the point….  It’s simply factually not valid as I’ve now explained repeatedly.   Dodds has never had an emphasis on defense.   Not in Seattle, not in Indy.   But Moose says he did.   And he keeps saying it again and again.  And then he quotes himself (people are saying, when it’s only him).  The person making the point matters because he’s been making faulty dishonest points since he arrived in 2018.   But this new point is something he’s only brought up recently.  The past few months.   You’re defending him because you share the same viewpoint.    
 

I’m sorry,  I don’t know what else to say?   

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

That's a passive way of calling us delusional, I guess.

 

They both had traits to play in a SEA defense too.  While Dodds was promoted from SEA to IND to do more than defense, finding defensive personnel was the immediate need over finding a QB, LT, or #1 WR at the time. 

 

You can't admit that simply because it might come close to supporting Moose's point? 

No.   It doesn't add up at all.  After that draft and firing Pagano and monachino the draft prospects haven't looked like Legion of Boom type players. You can't back up your pal at all

[DougDew]

43 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

The entire second paragraph is false.   That’s not the way jobs are run.   You and Moose keep insisting that Dodds was brought here to focus on defense as opposed to brought here to focus on the entire team.   That’s just not the way Dodd’s job is done.  
 

And let’s not kid ourselves.   Dodds and Brown have been interviewing for jobs for 3-4 years and neither of you have ever brought this up before.   But Moose brings it up now due to the weirdness of the last two years.   2022:  4-12-1 and 2023:  led to a 9-8 season with a backup.    Why wasn’t this brought up before?   
 

As to who makes the point….  It’s simply factually not valid as I’ve now explained repeatedly.   Dodds has never had an emphasis on defense.   Not in Seattle, not in Indy.   But Moose says he did.   And he keeps saying it again and again.  And then he quotes himself (people are saying, when it’s only him).  The person making the point matters because he’s been making faulty dishonest points since he arrived in 2018.   But this new point is something he’s only brought up recently.  The past few months.   You’re defending him because you share the same viewpoint.    
 

I’m sorry,  I don’t know what else to say?   

You keep equating his title of being responsible for all team personnel as an exclusion that he could have...apparently...focused on defense.  He didn't focus on the offense at the time because we had Luck, AC, and TY...and everybody on the planet knew in the 2018 draft that Nelson was an elite player...he wasn't hired to find Nelson.   You don't think he spent most of his time overseeing finding players to retool the defense?  That's where the player turnover was...by leaps and bounds over the offense.  There doesn't have to be confirmation from a trusted source to have reasonable inference that's what drove him being hired from SEA.  And the absence of direct verification is no evidence that the claim is 100% false.  

[jvan1973]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You keep equating his title of being responsible for all team personnel as an exclusion that he could have...apparently...focused on defense.  He didn't focus on the offense at the time because we had Luck, AC, and TY...and everybody on the planet knew in the 2018 draft that Nelson was an elite player...he wasn't hired to find Nelson.   You don't think he spent most of his time overseeing finding players to retool the defense?  That's where the player turnover was...by leaps and bounds over the offense.  There doesn't have to be confirmation form a trusted source to have reasonable inference that's what drove him being hired from SEA.  And the absence of direct verification is no evidence that the claim is 100% false.  

I could make up anything and say there is no evidence the claim is 100 percent false.   Usually claims come from some kind of credible source.   

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

I could make up anything and say there is no evidence the claim is 100 percent false.   Usually claims come from some kind of credible source.   

No they don't.  If you wait for that to happen, you're late to the party.  Since most people never know the facts, reasonable inferences come from one's own brain, and not waiting for someone else to think of it first and put it in a link for others to catch up.  

 

Were not talking about something substantial here like knowing the physics behind building a bridge.  Were just opining on football moves, so it goes without saying that any claim made is within the landscape that nobody really knows.  You get that when you read comments don't you?

[jvan1973]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

No they don't.  If you wait for that to happen, you're late to the party.  Since most people never know the facts, reasonable inferences come from one's own brain, and not waiting for someone else to think of it first and put it in a link for others to catch up.  

 

Were not talking about something substantial here like knowing the physics behind building a bridge.  Were just opining on football moves, so it goes without saying that any claim made is within the landscape that nobody really knows.  You get that when you read comments don't you?

Don't you find it odd you and Moose get the most pushback on terrible takes?  Most people might take a step back and reevaluate 

[DougDew]

27 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Don't you find it odd you and Moose get the most pushback on terrible takes?  Most people might take a step back and reevaluate 

Just from you and about 3 or 4 others.   Why do you define that small group as the standard of acceptance?  I have an emotional investment in being a Colts fan, but not in defending the Shoe. 

 

I'm a Colts fan because I have an emotion investment.  But I also have an emotional investment in watching good football.  If latter ever outweighs the former, like many folks, my investment in the Colts will dissipate. 

[NewColtsFan]

48 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You keep equating his title of being responsible for all team personnel as an exclusion that he could have...apparently...focused on defense.  He didn't focus on the offense at the time because we had Luck, AC, and TY...and everybody on the planet knew in the 2018 draft that Nelson was an elite player...he wasn't hired to find Nelson.   You don't think he spent most of his time overseeing finding players to retool the defense?  That's where the player turnover was...by leaps and bounds over the offense.  There doesn't have to be confirmation from a trusted source to have reasonable inference that's what drove him being hired from SEA.  And the absence of direct verification is no evidence that the claim is 100% false.  

The lack of understanding by Moose and you of what the job of an assistant GM is our holdup.   And the turnover of the Colts has been on-going every year Ballard has been here.  It wasn’t a one year thing.   It’s the absence of common sense, the absence of understanding what Dodds job description is.   We can’t seem to get past that. 
 

No, I don’t think he spent most of his time finding defense….  He’s trying to find talent everywhere.   Once Dodds and all the scouts and everyone who gets to give input have done so, they get their final grade.  I believe that’s done by Ballard.   He stacks the board.  He decides who they’re picking.   Dodds gives his info on all players, not just defense.  
 

Here’s how hard you’re working on this.  I, and others here,  have all noted that there was no public comment that Dodds was brought here to build the Colts version of the LoB.    So you turn it upside down by saying there was no refuting of the view either, so therefore it’s possible and not unreasonable.    You're resorting to the old standby here of….    It’s possible.   So you’re saying there’s a chance.   
 

If you want to walk in the knee deep pool of nonsense that’s up to you.  If you want to cling to a less than 1% chance, be my guest.  But it’s the weakest of all arguments and I think well beneath you.  You’ve made far better arguments than this.   
 

As I’ve said repeatedly throughout this day, I can’t find any common ground here.  So I think we should call it a day. 
 

 

[DougDew]

12 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

The lack of understanding by Moose and you of what the job of an assistant GM is our holdup.   And the turnover of the Colts has been on-going every year Ballard has been here.  It wasn’t a one year thing.   It’s the absence of common sense, the absence of understanding what Dodds job description is.   We can’t seem to get past that. 
 

No, I don’t think he spent most of his time finding defense….  He’s trying to find talent everywhere.   Once Dodds and all the scouts and everyone who gets to give input have done so, they get their final grade.  I believe that’s done by Ballard.   He stacks the board.  He decides who they’re picking.   Dodds gives his info on all players, not just defense.  
 

Here’s how hard you’re working on this.  I, and others here,  have all noted that there was no public comment that Dodds was brought here to build the Colts version of the LoB.    So you turn it upside down by saying there was no refuting of the view either, so therefore it’s possible and not unreasonable.    You're resorting to the old standby here of….    It’s possible.   So you’re saying there’s a chance.   
 

If you want to walk in the knee deep pool of nonsense that’s up to you.  If you want to cling to a less than 1% chance, be my guest.  But it’s the weakest of all arguments and I think well beneath you.  You’ve made far better arguments than this.   
 

As I’ve said repeatedly throughout this day, I can’t find any common ground here.  So I think we should call it a day. 
 

 

Would you say that a change over of defensive scheme...especially from a 34 to a 43 will cause any team to have more turnover on the defensive side of the ball over simply tweaking a QB led offense?  If you say no, you don't know half the stuff about the inner workings of a FO than what you think you have. 

[ShuteAt168]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I don’t know why you think I’m angry all the time?   But many people here have trouble reading tone into black and white text.   Also, you’re a new poster which means you have no idea of the history some of us have with each other, but you feel entitled to comment on it. 
 

I’m bothered when smart posters like you make weak arguments.   And saying if Dodds leaves maybe that will be better for Ballard is an incredibly weak argument.  And I don’t think it’s honest.   I think the inspiration for a comment like that is your very negative view of Ballard.   

You’re really winning me over to the side of simping for Ballard & Dodds. With Dodds at his side, Ballard is 54-60-1. Where would Chris be without him? 44-70-1? No way no how can we allow this Butch-Sundance combo to split up! 

[NewColtsFan]

16 hours ago, ShuteAt168 said:

You’re really winning me over to the side of simping for Ballard & Dodds. With Dodds at his side, Ballard is 54-60-1. Where would Chris be without him? 44-70-1? No way no how can we allow this Butch-Sundance combo to split up! 

Sarcasm.  
 

It was just earlier today when I called you a very smart poster making a very weak argument.   And this is how you respond?  
 

 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

On 1/29/2024 at 6:49 PM, cdgacoltsfan said:

Harbaugh and the Chargers will challenge the Chiefs for the West...year 1

 

with the chaegwrs past Common sense would say the chargers need to show me first BUT I don't disagree with you. And with Payton now there for his second season and highly likely a new QB, the Broncos could challenge as well. And if rumors are true that Andy Reid may retire after this season then that makes it more likely Harbaugh will have success. He hasn't failed anywhere before and with a Top 5 QB the chargers will possibly finally give their fans what they want. 

[Superman]

On 2/2/2024 at 4:32 PM, CR91 said:

More of an observation. I just feel like there's a lot more successful franchises to hire from. 

 

I don't think there's a formula for hiring a good GM. Similar to hiring a HC, it seems like teams want to hire people from other teams that have had success. That's reasonable, doesn't take a lot to understand why that's an attractive option. 

 

But just like coordinators from good teams flame out as HCs, execs from good teams flame out as GMs all the time. So it's not necessarily an effective method.

 

The other thing is that I don't know if we have any real understanding of the division of responsibilities in a front office. Sometimes we get little details and insights into the way things work, we know there's a director of pro scouting and a director of college scouting, so we can figure that out... we know that Dodds ran point on CJ Stroud and Brown ran point on Richardson... But who actually knows what Dodds does on a daily basis, or how those duties translate to the GM position? I don't. I think the whole operation is so collaborative and has so much overlap that it's hard to conclude that the successes or shortcomings of a team should be attributed to one specific person in the operation. More likely, a team is looking for individuals with certain traits and experience.

 

The Commanders just hired the assistant GM from the Niners, which makes sense. But what if he excels at big ideas and ingenuity, but struggles with planning, organization, and management? And maybe Dodds is the opposite? If your organization values one profile over the other, it would probably influence your final decision, maybe more than the relative success of the teams that each guy comes from. And enough guys from varied backgrounds and situations fail as GMs that there's probably no real pattern either way.

 

I don't have any beef with Dodds, or Brown. They seem respected and likable, but whether they'd be good GMs, I don't have any real idea. I'm kind of torn on the idea of either of them leaving. I don't like having a bunch of guys leave the building, but the possibility of having new people join the leadership crew is intriguing. However, if either Dodds or Brown does eventually leave, they most likely get replaced by someone who's already in-house, so we can't count on new blood in that situation.

[DougDew]

On 2/4/2024 at 1:21 AM, Superman said:

 

I don't think there's a formula for hiring a good GM. Similar to hiring a HC, it seems like teams want to hire people from other teams that have had success. That's reasonable, doesn't take a lot to understand why that's an attractive option. 

 

But just like coordinators from good teams flame out as HCs, execs from good teams flame out as GMs all the time. So it's not necessarily an effective method.

 

The other thing is that I don't know if we have any real understanding of the division of responsibilities in a front office. Sometimes we get little details and insights into the way things work, we know there's a director of pro scouting and a director of college scouting, so we can figure that out... we know that Dodds ran point on CJ Stroud and Brown ran point on Richardson... But who actually knows what Dodds does on a daily basis, or how those duties translate to the GM position? I don't. I think the whole operation is so collaborative and has so much overlap that it's hard to conclude that the successes or shortcomings of a team should be attributed to one specific person in the operation. More likely, a team is looking for individuals with certain traits and experience.

 

The Commanders just hired the assistant GM from the Niners, which makes sense. But what if he excels at big ideas and ingenuity, but struggles with planning, organization, and management? And maybe Dodds is the opposite? If your organization values one profile over the other, it would probably influence your final decision, maybe more than the relative success of the teams that each guy comes from. And enough guys from varied backgrounds and situations fail as GMs that there's probably no real pattern either way.

 

I don't have any beef with Dodds, or Brown. They seem respected and likable, but whether they'd be good GMs, I don't have any real idea. I'm kind of torn on the idea of either of them leaving. I don't like having a bunch of guys leave the building, but the possibility of having new people join the leadership crew is intriguing. However, if either Dodds or Brown does eventually leave, they most likely get replaced by someone who's already in-house, so we can't count on new blood in that situation.

 

 

My position in life gets me involved in many aspects of the corporate world.  And while our HR department handles the details, personnel decisions are not foreign to me.  So let me share an opinion from over 30 years in a business, that I think also applies to what we see in the round robin of front office and coaching hires in the NFL.

 

College kids get the same education, no matter where they go to college.  The educated about the same things, and get trained to follow the same processes and procedures.  Sure, the Ivy League is a little better than the Big 10, which is a little better than the SEC, etc.   But once immersed in the system, the talent pool comes out prepared with basically the same levels of education, skills, and training no matter where they come from. An Engineering major learned engineering the same way as the other kid.

 

A kid gets hired by Ford.  He does a good job there and gets promoted to Chrysler.  Onto GM, Toyota, then back to Ford.  Getting promoted along the way.  Why do his skills at one company translate well into the other companies?  Its because all of those different companies actually do most things exactly the same way as any competitor.  A Conductor for Norfolk Southern can get hired as a Conductor for CSX (rules aside)...and then to BNSF, and Union Pacific.  The job is basically the same.  Most people do a great job in performing their tasks in how they were trained.  And that's great.  But very few of them stand out.

 

I assume that NFL scouts trigger on the same player characteristics that scouts of other teams do.  They could probably lose all of their notes in a wind storm at a pro day, pick them up at random and still get the same information from the other guys notes as the information they wrote down themselves.  Out of say 1000 NFL personnel people, probably 12 stand out.  And the reason they stand out is because they each have different individual takes about the processes and procedures they were trained in....they reject some of that and replace it with their own thoughts.

 

Chances are that if you hire from the "Andy Reid tree", or the Philly organization,  or this team or that team, you're liking going to get just another one of the 988 that do their jobs well...that all other 31 teams have.  Its a bit funny to read how a lot of the football world places emphasis on how more successful teams have inherently better organizations.  Maybe BAL does things differently, and hire more from within.  But chances are they chose to build their team around a running QB exactly the same way as another organization would if they chose to go that direction and invest that first round pick in Lamar.  Maybe SF saw things differently with Purdy...but since they passed him over for 7 rounds, they probably just thought of him the same way other teams did.

 

Dodds strikes me as someone who hasn't stood out.  Perhaps he has no different takes on things, or they were not that good.  But chances are if he moves on, we'll just hire a replacement from one of the other 988 personnel employees from any one of the 31 teams to do the same job he did here and we'll be just fine.

 

Its also why I've never got excited over firing or hiring GMs or HCs like so many here.  We'll likely just get the same guy from the same sources as the guy we just fired.  It was time for Frank to go, because his performance dropped below a level that the other 988 guys could do.  Lets hope Shane can stand out in a good way by having his own takes on things.

[Superman]

On 2/4/2024 at 5:32 AM, DougDew said:

Dodds strikes me as someone who hasn't stood out.  Perhaps he has no different takes on things, or they were not that good.  But chances are if he moves on, we'll just hire a replacement from one of the other 988 personnel employees from any one of the 31 teams to do the same job he did here and we'll be just fine.

 

I follow a lot of what you're saying, but what could any front office exec do to stand out in the eyes of general fans? Just accepting your premise that 12 out of 1,000 are actually unique in some way, how would you or I be able to identify any of those 12? Even as people who follow and discuss the Colts, none of us really knows anything about Dodds or Brown, or their daily responsibilities. So it seems strange to judge the quality of their candidacy, either way.

 

As for my "new blood" theory, it's not necessarily that we'd hire someone who excels in some way and immediately upgrades the quality of the front office. It's just that I believe adding a new voice to a room of decision makers can lead to new conversations, it sparks new questions, it can lead to reconsideration of previously established practices, etc. And I think that's important from time to time. 

[ArmchairQB]

On 1/29/2024 at 9:55 AM, Moosejawcolt said:

Seems he is asking for a lot if indeed he is asking for the perfect situation as he really has done nothing with the Colts since being here. He was apparently brought here to replicate the Seattle D. It has been a disaster.

I tried to find anything to add credibility to what you said.  The only thing I could find was this old article from Stampede Blue that states Dodds was known institutionally around the NFL for being Schneiders secret weapon in Seattle. Only by Ballards inside knowledge of the league did he know to poach Dodds from Seattle and after the 2018 draft the secret is out around the league.  
 

no mention of what you stated which for me personally sounds like a goofy business plan.  
 

https://www.stampedeblue.com/platform/amp/2019/5/20/18631839/ed-dodds-is-a-top-gm-candidate-so-how-long-can-the-colts-keep-him

[ArmchairQB]

On 2/1/2024 at 11:24 PM, ShuteAt168 said:

I wonder how common it is for assistants to get hired away for GM after the team goes sub-.500 for seven years during that front office tenure. Serious question not piling on Dodds. He does seem well regarded but it seems like winning organizations are the ones to get talent poached. 

Sub .500 for 7 years?!  What seven years are you looking at?   I imagine your taking the overall record since Ballard has been here and just blindly applying it to the whole tenure?

 

Ballard has had 4 winning seasons and 3 losing seasons since he’s been here.  Now we can talk all day about lack of division titles and playoff success.  But skewing data to fit a narrative is not an honest way to evaluate the situation.  

[ShuteAt168]

40 minutes ago, ArmchairQB said:

Sub .500 for 7 years?!  What seven years are you looking at?   I imagine your taking the overall record since Ballard has been here and just blindly applying it to the whole tenure?

 

Ballard has had 4 winning seasons and 3 losing seasons since he’s been here.  Now we can talk all day about lack of division titles and playoff success.  But skewing data to fit a narrative is not an honest way to evaluate the situation.  

I think it’s clear what I was saying but I’ll clean it up: CB’s record is 54-60-1 (that’s sub .500) in his Colts tenure. Dodds-Ballard tracks the same. If you like Ballard and the Ballard-Dodds combo and are impressed and satisfied with what they’ve accomplished, that’s cool with me. Each his own. I am, however, always curious at how CB fans try to re-frame his tenure so it doesn’t look like 54-60-1. Again, though, each his own. 

[NewColtsFan]

On 2/5/2024 at 12:45 PM, Superman said:

 

I follow a lot of what you're saying, but what could any front office exec do to stand out in the eyes of general fans? Just accepting your premise that 12 out of 1,000 are actually unique in some way, how would you or I be able to identify any of those 12? Even as people who follow and discuss the Colts, none of us really knows anything about Dodds or Brown, or their daily responsibilities. So it seems strange to judge the quality of their candidacy, either way.

 

As for my "new blood" theory, it's not necessarily that we'd hire someone who excels in some way and immediately upgrades the quality of the front office. It's just that I believe adding a new voice to a room of decision makers can lead to new conversations, it sparks new questions, it can lead to reconsideration of previously established practices, etc. And I think that's important from time to time. 

Well….  I think the new voice has already been added.  It’s Shane Steichen.   Ballard emphasized at the hiring that he and SS see things the same way.   But still, it’s a new voice.  And since it’s clear that Ballard tries to give his HC the players he wants, then Steichen's voice matters. 

[ArmchairQB]

29 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

I think it’s clear what I was saying but I’ll clean it up: CB’s record is 54-60-1 (that’s sub .500) in his Colts tenure. Dodds-Ballard tracks the same. If you like Ballard and the Ballard-Dodds combo and are impressed and satisfied with what they’ve accomplished, that’s cool with me. Each his own. I am, however, always curious at how CB fans try to re-frame his tenure so it doesn’t look like 54-60-1. Again, though, each his own. 

Yea I understood that as I posted.  It’s still not a very objective way to look at it.  When you tell the average person this team is a 7 year sub .500 team most people would think they have had losing seasons every year for 7 years.  So it’s a bit of a dishonest take was my point.  I also don’t believe in zero sum arguments.  Giving credit to Ballard for his accomplishments is not the same as blind fandom.