Raiders request interview Colts assistant GM Ed Dodds

[ShuteAt168]

5 hours ago, ArmchairQB said:

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.  

I see your point now. I wasn’t trying to be dishonest since I post Ballard’s overall record all the time, but I agree with you in that the second way I put it in our exchange was more clear than the first. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 hours 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. 

You post Ballard's record more than I post Homer Simpson's GIFs which I thought wasn't possible. So, you obviously think Grigson was a better GM because his record was 49-31 (52-34 Playoffs included) with 2 Division Titles, even though he had Andrew Luck healthy for 4 of those 5 years. You do realize when Ballard had Luck, we were 10-6 and won a Playoff game.

 

[Yoshinator]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You post Ballard's record more than I post Homer Simpson's GIFs which I thought wasn't possible. So, you obviously think Grigson was a better GM because his record was 49-31 (52-34 Playoffs included) with 2 Division Titles, even though he had Andrew Luck healthy for 4 of those 5 years. You do realize when Ballard had Luck, we were 10-6 and won a Playoff game.

 

Ballard is better than Grigson, but he also neglected the QB position. He let Reich manipulate him into signing veteran options until last year, and we're heading into year 8 of Ballard's tenure with a QB essentially being a rookie again in his 2nd year and we've really done nothing. So Ballard put himself in this situation. I honestly think he should be fired already, but we'll see what happens this year. The record is relevant IMO, and the 1 playoff win and no division wins is also relevant. Brett Veach and John Lynch took over as GMs of the Chiefs and 49ers in 2017, the same year Ballard took over as the Colts GM. They are facing in the SB. We missed the playoffs. We made the wrong decision at GM.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, Yoshinator said:

Ballard is better than Grigson, but he also neglected the QB position. He let Reich manipulate him into signing veteran options until last year, and we're heading into year 8 of Ballard's tenure with a QB essentially being a rookie again in his 2nd year and we've really done nothing. So Ballard put himself in this situation. I honestly think he should be fired already, but we'll see what happens this year. The record is relevant IMO, and the 1 playoff win and no division wins is also relevant. Brett Veach and John Lynch took over as GMs of the Chiefs and 49ers in 2017, the same year Ballard took over as the Colts GM. They are facing in the SB. We missed the playoffs. We made the wrong decision at GM.

"Ballard is better than Grigson". Thanks that is all I needed - you have common sense, so their records are irrelevant in reality. Now I will agree Lynch and Veach are better, of course with Veach he struck gold with Mahomes. When Mahomes was drafted, I don't recall 1 person in the media or anyone saying he would be the next Brady or Manning. Sometimes when drafting players, it is better to be lucky than be good. 

 

I went through the list of GMs and I have Ballard rated 14th. Maybe for us, that isn't good enough? Richardson is going to play a huge part whether or not Ballard finally struck gold or he gets fired. 

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

"Ballard is better than Grigson". Thanks that is all I needed - you have common sense, so their records are irrelevant in reality. Now I will agree Lynch and Veach are better, of course with Veach he struck gold with Mahomes. When Mahomes was drafted, I don't recall 1 person in the media or anyone saying he would be the next Brady or Manning. Sometimes when drafting players, it is better to be lucky than be good. 

 

I went through the list of GMs and I have Ballard rated 14th. Maybe for us, that isn't good enough? Richardson is going to play a huge part whether or not Ballard finally struck gold or he gets fired. 

I have more faith now than anytime before for the Colts under Ballard, but that's only because we mostly have a complete team heading into year 8 of Ballard's tenure. It's not because this team looks incredible, it's because Richardson should be healthy, we have a solid pass rush, I'm assuming we get Pittman back, and Ballard said he'd be more aggressive in FA and we have a full slate of draft picks again this year. We also didn't lose Dodds or Brown. 

 

Ballard is in the 14-18 range as a GM to me. I will accept 14th. He has to be more aggressive as he says though with Richardson under a rookie contract. We have to strike now. We've been patient long enough. Time to reap the rewards. Ballard can't think "what if Richardson hits" he has to think "if Richardson hits then we will win because I'm building around him".

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, Yoshinator said:

I have more faith now than anytime before for the Colts under Ballard, but that's only because we mostly have a complete team heading into year 8 of Ballard's tenure. It's not because this team looks incredible, it's because Richardson should be healthy, we have a solid pass rush, I'm assuming we get Pittman back, and Ballard said he'd be more aggressive in FA and we have a full slate of draft picks again this year. We also didn't lose Dodds or Brown. 

 

Ballard is in the 14-18 range as a GM to me. I will accept 14th. He has to be more aggressive as he says though with Richardson under a rookie contract. We have to strike now. We've been patient long enough. Time to reap the rewards. Ballard can't think "what if Richardson hits" he has to think "if Richardson hits then we will win because I'm building around him".

If Richardson stays healthy, it should be a good season. Ballard hiring Shane, deserves an A. It will be interesting to see what Ballard does during this offseason. Taylor will be 100% as well. I can see us winning 10 games as an early projection, but I need to see who we draft and who we pick up in Free Agency to be sure. 

[Yoshinator]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

If Richardson stays healthy, it should be a good season. Ballard hiring Shane, deserves an A. It will be interesting to see what Ballard does during this offseason. Taylor will be 100% as well. I can see us winning 10 games as an early projection, but I need to see who we draft and who pick up in Free Agency to be sure. 

Shane Steichen looks solid for the most part. My biggest issue was not firing Gus Bradley. Though I love the new D-Line coach. 

 

I'd like to keep Minshew as a backup again if he's affordable (Richardson should play most of next season). I think we'll win 10 games and make the playoffs. I'm just very impatient and upset about last season still. I would be upset if we let Pittman hit FA. We need to be aggressive and fix weaknesses. Balard is good enough in the draft where he can sign a couple elite players and depth and fill in the rest through the draft. We don't have to get mediocre guys to fill the roster. We are past that now. 

 

I want Brock Bowers at 15. The TE FA class is weak and Bowers would be that elite player that would help our offense that would be hard to fill anywhere else.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, Yoshinator said:

Shane Steichen looks solid for the most part. My biggest issue was not firing Gus Bradley. Though I love the new D-Line coach. 

 

I'd like to keep Minshew as a backup again if he's affordable (Richardson should play most of next season). I think we'll win 10 games and make the playoffs. I'm just very impatient and upset about last season still. I would be upset if we let Pittman hit FA. We need to be aggressive and fix weaknesses. Balard is good enough in the draft where he can sign a couple elite players and depth and fill in the rest through the draft. We don't have to get mediocre guys to fill the roster. We are past that now. 

 

I want Brock Bowers at 15. The TE FA class is weak and Bowers would be that elite player that would help our offense that would be hard to fill anywhere else.

I am all for re-signing Minshew as well. He showed me enough of good football to where he could go 2-2 in a 4 game stretch if AR is out. 

 

This past season stings, knowing we were 1 play away from winning the division and I fully believe we would have beat the Browns like the Texans did in the playoffs. So yes, the way the season ended was a huge kick to the nuts! It still makes me sick to my stomach watching that last play. We had so many good wins as in sweeping Tennessee, winning at Houston, beating Pittsburgh finally, and the win at Baltimore was priceless. Even beating the Pats was satisfying because BB was on the sideline.

[shasta519]

7 hours ago, ArmchairQB said:

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.  

 

But assigning importance in the form of a "winning season" to two 9-8 seasons is also not very objective. The Colts are picking in the top half of the draft this year, which is not typically what a team with a winning season ends up doing. But an average person would assume a winning season was a success.

 

Ballard has gone from the pedestal to polarizing. At this point, I imagine you are going to have people who will defend him well beyond his tenure and people who won't change their tune even if the Colts win a SB.  

[shasta519]

43 minutes ago, Yoshinator said:

Shane Steichen looks solid for the most part. My biggest issue was not firing Gus Bradley. Though I love the new D-Line coach. 

 

I'd like to keep Minshew as a backup again if he's affordable (Richardson should play most of next season). I think we'll win 10 games and make the playoffs. I'm just very impatient and upset about last season still. I would be upset if we let Pittman hit FA. We need to be aggressive and fix weaknesses. Balard is good enough in the draft where he can sign a couple elite players and depth and fill in the rest through the draft. We don't have to get mediocre guys to fill the roster. We are past that now. 

 

I want Brock Bowers at 15. The TE FA class is weak and Bowers would be that elite player that would help our offense that would be hard to fill anywhere else.

 

Part of me thinks they are giving Bradley a chance to fix the defense, but the other part of me thinks Bradley will make for a nice scapegoat if next year doesn't go great. 

[chad72]

4 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

Part of me thinks they are giving Bradley a chance to fix the defense, but the other part of me thinks Bradley will make for a nice scapegoat if next year doesn't go great. 

 

I am not sure how much more of a scapegoat he can be when all we have is our sack count to go on while a lot of other defensive metrics don't jive with that of a very good D. Odds are, defensive metrics improve because for most of them, starting with points per game, the likely direction is upwards.

 

If they did not fire him after this year, I won't get my hopes up for next year.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You post Ballard's record more than I post Homer Simpson's GIFs which I thought wasn't possible. So, you obviously think Grigson was a better GM because his record was 49-31 (52-34 Playoffs included) with 2 Division Titles, even though he had Andrew Luck healthy for 4 of those 5 years. You do realize when Ballard had Luck, we were 10-6 and won a Playoff game.

 

 

Why is Luck responsible for the success under Grigson, but not the (unfortunately short) success with Ballard?

 

Both GMs had to rebuild rosters. And in the small sample we have to compare, they had the same success with Luck. In his 2nd year as GM, Grigson went 11-5 and 1-1 in the playoffs with Luck at QB. In his 2nd year as GM, Ballard went 10-6 and 1-1 in the playoffs with Luck as his QB.

 

If Luck had stayed for Ballard's 3rd year, nothing short of a trip to the SB would have been more successful than Grigson's 3rd year with Luck as QB because that team went to the AFCCG. 

 

We don't know what would have happened after that. The landscape of the AFC changed dramatically since Luck retired. So what could have happened is mostly just conjecture. 

 

I don't mean to get into some debate over these two guys again. If it were up to me, neither would be the Colts GM. But this has always been such a double standard that exists throughout most of this fanbase.

[shasta519]

26 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

I am not sure how much more of a scapegoat he can be when all we have is our sack count to go on while a lot of other defensive metrics don't jive with that of a very good D. Odds are, defensive metrics improve because for most of them, starting with points per game, the likely direction is upwards.

 

If they did not fire him after this year, I won't get my hopes up for next year.

 

Well he can just being a scapegoat in this scenario I guess. Now that I think of it, he strikes me as more of a mid-season fire if they aren't playing well.

 

I really don't know why they kept him. Maybe he is good friends with Steichen. But I think he's ultimately going to take the fall for an aging defense that is going to need to be rebuilt very soon. 

 

If you think about it, this defense has largely been the same since 2020. And it's only that recent because that was when DeFo was acquired. But the majority of impact players like DeFo (2020), Grove (2017), Franklin (2017), Speed (2019), Lewis (2018) and Moore (2018) are all from several years ago. 

 

The only newcomers are a couple of ERs who have yet to become foundational players and some DBs who are unknowns. 

 

I don't think we can consider this continuity to be a good thing, especially since this team has had a low ceiling for years. And it would seem to be a byproduct of philosophy (we like our guys) and some not so great drafting.

[2006Coltsbestever]

16 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

Why is Luck responsible for the success under Grigson, but not the (unfortunately short) success with Ballard?

 

Both GMs had to rebuild rosters. And in the small sample we have to compare, they had the same success with Luck. In his 2nd year as GM, Grigson went 11-5 and 1-1 in the playoffs with Luck at QB. In his 2nd year as GM, Ballard went 10-6 and 1-1 in the playoffs with Luck as his QB.

 

If Luck had stayed for Ballard's 3rd year, nothing short of a trip to the SB would have been more successful than Grigson's 3rd year with Luck as QB because that team went to the AFCCG. 

 

We don't know what would have happened after that. The landscape of the AFC changed dramatically since Luck retired. So what could have happened is mostly just conjecture. 

 

I don't mean to get into some debate over these two guys again. If it were up to me, neither would be the Colts GM. But this has always been such a double standard that exists throughout most of this fanbase.

You basically missed my point. Do you think Ballard would be 54-60-1 if he had Andrew Luck at QB during his whole tenure like Grigson had the luxury of having. Some always want to bring up Ballard's record, that was my point. Had Luck not retired, Ballard's record would be way above .500 and everyone knows it that has common sense. Also, to Ballard's defense, counting his 4-12 record in his 1st season is really narrow minded considering he took over Grigson's crappy roster and Luck missed the whole season.

[shasta519]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You basically missed my point. Do you think Ballard would be 54-60-1 if he had Andrew Luck at QB during his whole tenure like Grigson had the luxury of having. Some always want to bring up Ballard's record, that was my point. Had Luck not retired, Ballard's record would be way above .500 and everyone knows it that has common sense. Also, to Ballard's defense, counting his 4-12 record in his 1st season is really narrow minded considering he took over Grigson's crappy roster and Luck missed the whole season.

 

I do get your point. But we can only evaluate based on what HAS happened. You can take out 2017 if you like, but let's not act like Ballard's 2018 draft class (the foundation of his reputation) wasn't a direct result of it.

 

We don't need to get into specific aspects of the GM role. Everybody will agree that Ballard clears Grigson on many in that regard. That's not my point.

 

My point is that we can't ding Grigson's success for having Luck and excuse Ballard's lack of success for not having Luck. It has been said that Luck carried an entire org. for multiple years. If he can do that, what would make Ballard's success more legitimate (assuming it was a similar run).

 

If anything, the same grading curve you are applying to Ballard not having Luck would have to be applied to him in the opposite way if he did have Luck. But with how quick people are to credit 2018 to Ballard, that would never happen. Again, it's just a double standard. 

[Superman]

8 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

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. 

 

This is true, and I'm looking forward to seeing how this offseason goes. But I don't think the HC is going to make a big imprint on front office specific stuff, like the scouting process, player evaluations, etc. 

[NewColtsFan]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is true, and I'm looking forward to seeing how this offseason goes. But I don't think the HC is going to make a big imprint on front office specific stuff, like the scouting process, player evaluations, etc. 

 

Well….  Think of how many times we heard about the players that Frank loved and Ballard acquired for him. 
 

Campbell,  Granson, Pittman, Taylor, Pierce.  And QBs like Wentz,  Rivers, Sam and the 4th rounder from Washington and Georgia whose name escapes me.  
 

Now the Colts will have the chance of getting the influence of Steichen who appears to have a sharper eye for talent.  I look forward to seeing how that influences who the Colts draft.   

[Superman]

35 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Well….  Think of how many times we heard about the players that Frank loved and Ballard acquired for him. 
 

Campbell,  Granson, Pittman, Taylor, Pierce.  And QBs like Wentz,  Rivers, Sam and the 4th rounder from Washington and Georgia whose name escapes me.  
 

Now the Colts will have the chance of getting the influence of Steichen who appears to have a sharper eye for talent.  I look forward to seeing how that influences who the Colts draft.   

 

To your first point, I personally think the general consensus around the GM getting players that the coach loved is a little overblown. I think sometimes we take a one-off comment and turn it into absolute gospel, when there's actually a lot of context and nuance that's missing. Reich may have loved Granson, but that doesn't mean that everyone didn't love Granson. And maybe Reich thought he was a top 50 guy, while the scouts and Ballard felt he'd be available for longer. Just a hypothetical to illustrate why I think this narrative can become exaggerated. 

 

I think the point about QBs is clear and obvious. Including Steichen having a major influence over the Richardson pick. And I think the Colts' front office is very collaborative, so I'm not questioning that the HC has an important voice. Just saying I don't think we really know to what extent his voice is influencing roster decisions.

 

But another point that I want to push back on is the bolded. I mentioned this recently as well. What indication do we have that Steichen has a sharper eye for talent than any who was here before him, or anyone else in the building? 

 

And lastly, just to clarify my earlier point about the HC influencing the scouting process... The process is very involved, the scouts report to the GM and other front office execs, and that process is mostly independent of the coaching staff. When I talk about a new voice in the front office, I'm thinking about the potential for adjustments to the scouting and player evaluation process that is mostly handled by the front office. To my mind, that process would not be directly influenced by the HC. But if we hired a new director of college scouting, there would be a more direct impact. Again, just theorizing, and at this point, it seems irrelevant because Ed Dodds isn't going anywhere right now.

[ShuteAt168]

6 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You post Ballard's record more than I post Homer Simpson's GIFs which I thought wasn't possible. So, you obviously think Grigson was a better GM because his record was 49-31 (52-34 Playoffs included) with 2 Division Titles, even though he had Andrew Luck healthy for 4 of those 5 years. You do realize when Ballard had Luck, we were 10-6 and won a Playoff game.

 

Ha ha! That Homer Simpson line cracked me up. You win. In my defense, posting Ballard’s record is my schtick, my trademark. Without it I’m the Lone Ranger without his horse, Super Man minus the cape. 

[ArmchairQB]

7 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

But assigning importance in the form of a "winning season" to two 9-8 seasons is also not very objective. The Colts are picking in the top half of the draft this year, which is not typically what a team with a winning season ends up doing. But an average person would assume a winning season was a success.

 

Ballard has gone from the pedestal to polarizing. At this point, I imagine you are going to have people who will defend him well beyond his tenure and people who won't change their tune even if the Colts win a SB.  

Well I certainly don’t want to be accused of mindlessly defending anything.  I do certainly gravitate to things being said specifically to push a larger narrative.  I guess I want to understand why this is such a polarizing topic.  
 

more specifically,  I would like to understand what specifically people deem as being so shortsighted or mistake worthy that some see Ballard as a Pariah?

 

He’s made plenty of mistakes.  Letting Autry walk to me was the most egregious.   Hiring McDaniels would have surely tipped the scale against him but he was bailed out by fate and luck that time.  
 

There are a lot of reasons teams have losing seasons.  Boiling it down to the lowest common denominator of W-L record equates to good or bad GM doesn’t work for me.  
 

Anyway,  this is a thread about Dodds.  I wasn’t even talking about Ballard.  You made this about Ballard. 
 

at the end of the day you can win the battle but you’ll still lose the war.  Dodds is highly sought after in the industry and has interest every year regardless of what Colts fans think. 

[richard pallo]

10 minutes ago, ArmchairQB said:

Well I certainly don’t want to be accused of mindlessly defending anything.  I do certainly gravitate to things being said specifically to push a larger narrative.  I guess I want to understand why this is such a polarizing topic.  
 

more specifically,  I would like to understand what specifically people deem as being so shortsighted or mistake worthy that some see Ballard as a Pariah?

 

He’s made plenty of mistakes.  Letting Autry walk to me was the most egregious.   Hiring McDaniels would have surely tipped the scale against him but he was bailed out by fate and luck that time.  
 

There are a lot of reasons teams have losing seasons.  Boiling it down to the lowest common denominator of W-L record equates to good or bad GM doesn’t work for me.  
 

Anyway,  this is a thread about Dodds.  I wasn’t even talking about Ballard.  You made this about Ballard. 
 

at the end of the day you can win the battle but you’ll still lose the war.  Dodds is highly sought after in the industry and has interest every year regardless of what Colts fans think. 

I wouldn’t say Dodds is highly sought after.  Every year he seems to get a few interviews that has resulted in him not getting the jobs he’s interviewed for.  I think if he was highly sought after he would have secured a position by now.  I think he’s just  another guy on the interview circuit that is having a hard time impressing a team when he does get an interview.  

[ArmchairQB]

9 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I wouldn’t say Dodds is highly sought after.  Every year he seems to get a few interviews that has resulted in him not getting the jobs he’s interviewed for.  I think if he was highly sought after he would have secured a position by now.  I think he’s just  another guy on the interview circuit that is having a hard time impressing a team when he does get an interview.  

I was responding to a post wondering why an assistant GM, that has been in the front office of a team with middling success, would get a job interview at all.  
 

But for you this is the story I was referencing.  Just because you wouldn’t say it doesn’t make it untrue. 

 

https://fox5sandiego.com/sports/sports-illustrated/arena-nfl/si-los-angeles-chargers-nfl/82fa9fc0/chargers-news-bolts-interview-indianapolis-colts-assistant-gm/#:~:text=Dodds could be the right,their approach to team building.

[richard pallo]

10 minutes ago, ArmchairQB said:

I was responding to a post wondering why an assistant GM, that has been in the front office of a team with middling success, would get a job interview at all.  
 

But for you this is the story I was referencing.  Just because you wouldn’t say it doesn’t make it untrue. 

 

https://fox5sandiego.com/sports/sports-illustrated/arena-nfl/si-los-angeles-chargers-nfl/82fa9fc0/chargers-news-bolts-interview-indianapolis-colts-assistant-gm/#:~:text=Dodds could be the right,their approach to team building.

Thanks for the article.  But for me it just reinforces what I said.  He is one of those guys who s on the interview circuit.  He was interviewed along with a large number of other candidates.  Still can’t nail down a job and every year there is more competition.  Maybe if we make the playoffs this year that might help him a little.  You still need to impress in the interview though.