Why are some teams always in playoff contention

[GoColts8818]

5 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

In my mind sustaining success in the NFL is like three sides of a triangle: Coaching, GM, and Quarterback and you need all three to have a stable structure.

 

The bad teams have one or none, the continually good teams have two, and the SB contenders have all 3:

 

 The 49ers have had coaching and GM for 4-5 years. Add a QB this year that could equal all 3 and a SB win. 

 We thought the Eagles had all three but it's looking like the coaching arm may have left last year. 

 The Colts had all 3 with Manning, Polian, and Dungy.

 The Pats with Brady, Belicheck and Belicheck. The Pats lost two sides in Brady and GM Belicheck and they now suck. 

 

Every once in a while, a team can win with just 2 of the 3 but its very rare and its typically because their okish QB played like an all-timer (Flacco, Eli, etc).

And to support your point the Colts didn’t become one of those teams until they got Dungy.  Before that were regressing under Polian and Manning having gone from 13-3 to 10-6 to 6-10.  It wasn’t until they got Dungy that they became a team that roles out of bed and wins 12 games every year.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

In my mind sustaining success in the NFL is like three sides of a triangle: Coaching, GM, and Quarterback and you need all three to have a stable structure.

 

The bad teams have one or none, the continually good teams have two, and the SB contenders have all 3:

 

 The 49ers have had coaching and GM for 4-5 years. Add a QB this year that could equal all 3 and a SB win. 

 We thought the Eagles had all three but it's looking like the coaching arm may have left last year. 

 The Colts had all 3 with Manning, Polian, and Dungy.

 The Pats with Brady, Belicheck and Belicheck. The Pats lost two sides in Brady and GM Belicheck and they now suck. 

 

Every once in a while, a team can win with just 2 of the 3 but its very rare and its typically because their okish QB played like an all-timer (Flacco, Eli, etc).

 

I'd add that it starts with good ownership. Some owners just can't get out of their own way, hire the wrong people, fire the wrong people, play favorites, dominate the process, etc. With good ownership, your GM and HC can thrive, and the football people can find and develop good players. 

 

With bad ownership, you get Washington, Jax, etc. 

[Yoshinator]

10 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

No one can answer that question. The ones calling for his removal can’t even entertain the concept that the replacement could be really bad… I’m thankful those individuals aren’t making the decisions for the company I work for and those that I’m invested in, that’s for sure. 

I would promote Ed Dodds to GM, and Morocco Brown to Assistant GM and fire Ballard. Let Ed hire a new director of college scouting. Maybe get that Kelly Kleine girl from the Broncos. She does a good job.

[ColtStrong2013]

47 minutes ago, Yoshinator said:

I would promote Ed Dodds to GM, and Morocco Brown to Assistant GM and fire Ballard. Let Ed hire a new director of college scouting. Maybe get that Kelly Kleine girl from the Broncos. She does a good job.

 

Why? Those are Ballard's guys... They were involved in the decision-making and scouting process. 

 

Firing Ballard and hiring from within is saying "We like what you've done, especially the personnel you have brought in the front office and coaching staff which we are retaining, as well as a good deal of the roster you have drafted/assembled, as well as the overall philosophy you have implemented here... But it's just not working out" 

 

That doesn't make much sense to me. 

Again, I have yet to hear a reasonable take on what happens after he's fired. A new outside GM comes in and works wonders with Shane Steichen, who came here to work with Chris Ballard? I'm not sure. Do they feel they need to blow up a great deal of the roster? That's not moving in the right direction after nearly winning the division with the starting qb on the sideline. 

[Nesjan3]

I have had so many back and forths about Ballard with his supporters that im just not really into it anymore. There is no winning haha.

 

I will just say reading all the comments in the various topics I find it quite comical how his supporters seem to latch on to every little thing he has done right and prop those things up on a pedestal. While completely ignoring the results, the things he has done wrong, and just how long it has been since this team has had genuine success.

 

Like 7 years in, no division titles, minimal playoff success, below .500 record and perpetually mediocre means nothing.

 

I have often seen them pointing to it being a "process" that takes "time". While teams like the Rams, Lions, Texans, Jags, Bengals have all made huge turnarounds in a much shorter period of time. Rebuilds, re-tools, becoming a playoff contender whatever you want to call it doesn't take 8 years in the modern NFL folks. 

[ColtStrong2013]

16 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

I have had so many back and forths about Ballard with his supporters that im just not really into it anymore. There is no winning haha.

 

I will just say reading all the comments in the various topics I find it quite comical how his supporters seem to latch on to every little thing he has done right and prop those things up on a pedestal. While completely ignoring the results, the things he has done wrong, and just how long it has been since this team has had genuine success.

 

Like 7 years in, no division titles, minimal playoff success, below .500 record and perpetually mediocre means nothing.

 

I have often seen them pointing to it being a "process" that takes "time". While teams like the Rams, Lions, Texans, Jags, Bengals have all made huge turnarounds in a much shorter period of time. Rebuilds, re-tools, becoming a playoff contender whatever you want to call it doesn't take 8 years in the modern NFL folks. 

yada yada. It’s the same thing with you too… works both ways. 
 

“There’s no winning… but while I’m here, I might as well say something”

 

lol. What a 🤡 

[Nesjan3]

12 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

yada yada. It’s the same thing with you too… works both ways. 
 

“There’s no winning… but while I’m here, I might as well say something”

 

lol. What a 🤡 

I get it you will die on a hill defending Ballard. And your perfectly ok with mediocre. However some of us want actual results. No need for personal shots. Being an internet warrior calling people clowns isnt the best look.

[ColtStrong2013]

3 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

I get it you will die on a hill defending Ballard. And your perfectly ok with mediocre. However some of us want actual results. No need for personal shots. Being an internet warrior calling people clowns isnt the best look.

[adubb84]

7 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

 

All I know is since 1994, we have been to 5 AFC Title Games, 2 SB's, and have won 1 SB = 2006. We have been .500 or better since 1994 in 23 of 30 seasons. That means we have been relevant/playoff contention around 76.7% of the time over the last 30 seasons, not many teams can say that. We have had 7 bad seasons in 30 years.  

 

I am giving people a 30 season sample size (1994-2023). This season, we were 9-8 and a play or 2 away from winning the division and lost to a team that just made the Browns look like a college team. 

On a side note - I’ve always wondered if fans (this forum specifically) consider the Super Bowl the Baltimore Colts won part of our heritage (putting us at 2) or just a write off since it didn’t happen in Indianapolis. 

[Douzer]

From my armchair, the teams that are always "in it" have defensive identities that attack offenses. It's only the more rare offenses that can withstand relentless pressure without making key, game changing mistakes. As such, the defense first teams simply win more regular season games.

 

In the most recent history, the Colts were a 4-3 with edge rushers but small tackles, then they became middle of the pack 3-4, then they converted back a an undersized 4-3. now they're a soft zone 4-3.  Not what one would describe as a franchise with a well established and feared defensive identity.

 

But that's my 2 cents...

[Superman]

20 minutes ago, Douzer said:

From my armchair, the teams that are always "in it" have defensive identities that attack offenses. It's only the more rare offenses that can withstand relentless pressure without making key, game changing mistakes. As such, the defense first teams simply win more regular season games.

 

Didn't the Colts win more games in a ten year span than any other team in NFL history, playing mostly a conservative Tampa 2 defense? 

[Yoshinator]

2 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

Why? Those are Ballard's guys... They were involved in the decision-making and scouting process. 

 

Firing Ballard and hiring from within is saying "We like what you've done, especially the personnel you have brought in the front office and coaching staff which we are retaining, as well as a good deal of the roster you have drafted/assembled, as well as the overall philosophy you have implemented here... But it's just not working out" 

 

That doesn't make much sense to me. 

Again, I have yet to hear a reasonable take on what happens after he's fired. A new outside GM comes in and works wonders with Shane Steichen, who came here to work with Chris Ballard? I'm not sure. Do they feel they need to blow up a great deal of the roster? That's not moving in the right direction after nearly winning the division with the starting qb on the sideline. 

I like the way Ballard drafts. I want to keep that philosophy. I just want a new, fresh mind in Ed Dodds that may do other things different that hasn't gotten a shot yet. You assume he would have the same FA philosophy and the same views on positions. I want to keep Steichen if possible and Dodds and Brown. This would keep most of the core together while allowing a new voice that may do some things differently, but keep the same drafting views that allowed us to build a good team. Hopefully, Dodds would be more aggressive and build a better secondary like in Seattle.

 

Let's face it, if we don't do this, we'll probably lose at least one or both of Dodds or Brown anyway, and that would make our drafts much worse (which is our one strength). I'd rather cut the head off the snake and try something else. 

[CoachLite]

20 hours ago, indyagent17 said:

I’ve been putting a lot of thought to this just thinking about it how come Pittsburgh has never had a losing season. Why was the New England so good for so many years? Why is San Francisco always competing for championship? It’s because they have great owners that their general managers on the team. Great coaching from the entire staff and steller scouting. Rarely missing on draft picks

Simple. They understand what it takes to hire good coaches, good players and play winning football. The rubric we use in these matters isn't cutting it, and this is evidenced by keeping Gus Bradley. My prediction is the same 'ole, same 'ole in the future. Look how long we kept Pagano and Reich? Pitiful.

[ColtStrong2013]

6 minutes ago, Yoshinator said:

I like the way Ballard drafts. I want to keep that philosophy. I just want a new, fresh mind in Ed Dodds that may do other things different that hasn't gotten a shot yet. You assume he would have the same FA philosophy and the same views on positions. I want to keep Steichen if possible and Dodds and Brown. This would keep most of the core together while allowing a new voice that may do some things differently, but keep the same drafting views that allowed us to build a good team. Hopefully, Dodds would be more aggressive and build a better secondary like in Seattle.

 

Let's face it, if we don't do this, we'll probably lose at least one or both of Dodds or Brown anyway, and that would make our drafts much worse (which is our one strength). I'd rather cut the head off the snake and try something else. 

Zero chance. Again, there is no justification to firing Ballard and keeping everything he brought to the organization in tact. If you are firing the gm, you are moving in a different direction than the one they brought, not just kicking the tires on a fresh person making the final decisions that they were heavily involved in to begin with. 
 

 

[ColtStrong2013]

Just now, CoachLite said:

Simple. They understand what it takes to hire good coaches, good players and play winning football. The rubric we use in these matters isn't cutting it, and this is evidenced by keeping Gus Bradley. My prediction is the same 'ole, same 'ole in the future. Look how long we kept Pagano and Reich? Pitiful.

that’s more Jim Irsay’s philosophy on coaching than anyone… 

 

Ever heard the story of his dad firing the head coach after a preseason game? Jim was a kid and was humiliated. Sat and cried on the bus with the players he was so embarrassed. Swore he would never run the team like that. He’s been more than generous with coaches. It’s a large reason why Ballard is still handling things. 

[CoachLite]

4 minutes ago, CoachLite said:

Simple. They understand what it takes to hire good coaches, good players and play winning football. The rubric we use in these matters isn't cutting it, and this is evidenced by keeping Gus Bradley. My prediction is the same 'ole, same 'ole in the future. Look how long we kept Pagano and Reich? Pitiful.

Some here may not be familiar with using rubrics for personnel evaluations. Here's an example:

[CoachLite]

6 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

that’s more Jim Irsay’s philosophy on coaching than anyone… 

 

Ever heard the story of his dad firing the head coach after a preseason game? Jim was a kid and was humiliated. Sat and cried on the bus with the players he was so embarrassed. Swore he would never run the team like that. He’s been more than generous with coaches. It’s a large reason why Ballard is still handling things. 

This is why it is important to have 'provable' performance measures, and keep all the emotional 'stuff' out of professional decisions.

[ColtStrong2013]

26 minutes ago, CoachLite said:

Some here may not be familiar with using rubrics for personnel evaluations. Here's an example:

 

I'd like to see it, but it's not visible. 

[ColtStrong2013]

24 minutes ago, CoachLite said:

This is why it is important to have 'provable' performance measures, and keep all the emotional 'stuff' out of professional decisions.

 

If you are stating that favoring disposing of Pagano and Reich more quickly, then I would suppose Jim Irsay would argue that he learned being patient and keeping the emotional stuff out of professional decisions was from the way his father ran things, which was on the opposite end of the spectrum.

[Superman]

35 minutes ago, CoachLite said:

This is why it is important to have 'provable' performance measures, and keep all the emotional 'stuff' out of professional decisions.

 

What provable performance measures do you think would/should have resulted in Pagano or Reich being fired sooner than they were? 

[Douzer]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Didn't the Colts win more games in a ten year span than any other team in NFL history, playing mostly a conservative Tampa 2 defense? 

Ah - provocateur.  You must be speaking of the team that consistently lost in the playoffs when they faced the gambit of playoff level defenses. Each time tossing a HOF QB, multiple great receivers, a world class TE, and quality RB's to the curb.

 

Much like the two top offenses this year - Dallas & Miami  - one and done.

[GoColts8818]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I'd add that it starts with good ownership. Some owners just can't get out of their own way, hire the wrong people, fire the wrong people, play favorites, dominate the process, etc. With good ownership, your GM and HC can thrive, and the football people can find and develop good players. 

 

With bad ownership, you get Washington, Jax, etc. 

think that because they own the team that somehow makes them the best person to make football decisions for the team.  That and being cheap was Bill Irsay’s problem.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Douzer said:

Ah - provocateur.  You must be speaking of the team that consistently lost in the playoffs when they faced the gambit of playoff level defenses. Each time tossing a HOF QB, multiple great receivers, a world class TE, and quality RB's to the curb.

 

Much like the two top offenses this year - Dallas & Miami  - one and done.

 

What prompted my response was your statement that "defense first teams simply win more regular season games."

 

And now you're talking about playoff results.

 

Doesn't the success of that team that was weighted toward the offense, with a conservative defense, somewhat undermine your position?

 

I'd actually be interested in an analysis of what kind of team tends to win more regular season games. My initial thinking is that the analysis would favor more offensive minded teams in the regular season.

[shasta519]

3 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

Why? Those are Ballard's guys... They were involved in the decision-making and scouting process. 

 

Firing Ballard and hiring from within is saying "We like what you've done, especially the personnel you have brought in the front office and coaching staff which we are retaining, as well as a good deal of the roster you have drafted/assembled, as well as the overall philosophy you have implemented here... But it's just not working out" 

 

That doesn't make much sense to me. 

Again, I have yet to hear a reasonable take on what happens after he's fired. A new outside GM comes in and works wonders with Shane Steichen, who came here to work with Chris Ballard? I'm not sure. Do they feel they need to blow up a great deal of the roster? That's not moving in the right direction after nearly winning the division with the starting qb on the sideline. 

It’s not unprecedented. KC fired John Dorsey and promoted Brett Veach to GM. 
 

But it wouldn’t be Dodds…it would have to be Brown  since they want to build around AR…and AR is his guy. Dodds was the one who was hesitant. 

[shasta519]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What prompted my response was your statement that "defense first teams simply win more regular season games."

 

And now you're talking about playoff results.

 

Doesn't the success of that team that was weighted toward the offense, with a conservative defense, somewhat undermine your position?

Pretty sure we just saw the greatest overall QB play in a playoff weekend….ever. Defense seemed optional at times  

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

It’s not unprecedented. KC fired John Dorsey and promoted Brett Veach to GM. 

 

Seems like Dorsey was a jerk, which is what got him fired. I don't think that would be a factor with Ballard and the Colts. And I think it's interesting that Dorsey got fired right after Ballard left, like maybe Ballard was the counterweight to Dorsey, and once Ballard was gone they knew that Dorsey's management style would cause problems. That's just me theorizing... 

 

But Dorsey was an exceptional roster builder, there's no question about that. Which is why it was so shocking when he got fired.

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

think that because they own the team that somehow makes them the best person to make football decisions for the team.  That and being cheap was Bill Irsay’s problem.

 

Seems like David Tepper has the same problem. Not the cheap part...

[GoColts8818]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Seems like David Tepper has the same problem. Not the cheap part...

Yeah to me most bad owners fit into one or other the Colts just got “lucky” that Bill checked both boxes.  At least Jim learned from his mistakes though.

[Douzer]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

What prompted my response was your statement that "defense first teams simply win more regular season games."

 

And now you're talking about playoff results.

 

Doesn't the success of that team that was weighted toward the offense, with a conservative defense, somewhat undermine your position?

Those Colts teams were an outlier, a unique record setting regular season offense. An exception to the rule or norm.  

 

I'll just note here the top 4 defenses this year (points against) are playing this weekend - Baltimore, San Francisco, Buffalo, & Kansas City. Lots of regular season wins in this group.

[ADnum1]

5 hours ago, Dingus McGirt said:

Whom.Would.You.Replace.Ballard.With?

Where did the texan GM come from ?

 

Perhaps we can look there.

 

Surely as reasonable people we can acknowledge that the texan GM has run circles around Turtle Ballard.

 

Am I right ???

[ColtStrong2013]

2 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

Where did the texan GM come from ?

 

Perhaps we can look there.

 

Surely as reasonable people we can acknowledge that the texan GM has run circles around Turtle Ballard.

 

Am I right ???

Ballard 3-2-1 against Caserio head to head… 

 

one had a higher draft pick last year, with both taking qbs. Both teams had the same type of turnaround, except one had their drafted qb on IR and the other’s played mvp level. Division came down to a head-to-head matchup and the Texans won on a 4th down stop. 
 

If I didn’t know any better, I would think you were being sarcastic, but you aren’t. You are totally serious and think you are “reasonable” to think Caserio runs circles around Ballard. lol. 

[ColtStrong2013]

44 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

It’s not unprecedented. KC fired John Dorsey and promoted Brett Veach to GM. 
 

But it wouldn’t be Dodds…it would have to be Brown  since they want to build around AR…and AR is his guy. Dodds was the one who was hesitant. 

This is true. Good point. But that is a rare situation. and I think @Superman is correct, there was more than that was told leading to his abrupt firing. 

[ADnum1]

6 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Ballard 3-2-1 against Caserio head to head… 

 

one had a higher draft pick last year, with both taking qbs. Both teams had the same type of turnaround, except one had their drafted qb on IR and the other’s played mvp level. Division came down to a head-to-head matchup and the Texans won on a 4th down stop. 
 

If I didn’t know any better, I would think you were being sarcastic, but you aren’t. You are totally serious and think you are “reasonable” to think Caserio runs circles around Ballard. lol. 

Caserio is kicking turtle ballards *.

 

Sorry if that disrupts your sense of this world.

 

I see another 9-8 season coming under turtle Ballard 

 

I feel like a Turtle waiting for Turtle Ballard to do something. 

 

Anything 

[ColtStrong2013]

2 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

Caserio is kicking turtle ballards *.

 

Sorry if that disrupts your sense of this world.

 

I see another 9-8 season coming under turtle Ballard 

 

I feel like a Turtle waiting for Turtle Ballard to do something. 

 

Anything 

I just saw your name on the poll back in April for who you wanted the colts to draft at qb… you said none of the above. 
 

I don’t think you are a credible poster. lol. And the turtle talk is just weird. So I don’t think you are a serious poster either. 

 

have a good night turtle man

[shasta519]

3 hours ago, Nesjan3 said:

I have had so many back and forths about Ballard with his supporters that im just not really into it anymore. There is no winning haha.

 

I will just say reading all the comments in the various topics I find it quite comical how his supporters seem to latch on to every little thing he has done right and prop those things up on a pedestal. While completely ignoring the results, the things he has done wrong, and just how long it has been since this team has had genuine success.

 

Like 7 years in, no division titles, minimal playoff success, below .500 record and perpetually mediocre means nothing.

 

I have often seen them pointing to it being a "process" that takes "time". While teams like the Rams, Lions, Texans, Jags, Bengals have all made huge turnarounds in a much shorter period of time. Rebuilds, re-tools, becoming a playoff contender whatever you want to call it doesn't take 8 years in the modern NFL folks. 

I think he’s something like 40-42-1 since Luck retired. One playoff appearance. No wins.

 

IND is among 13 teams who haven’t won a playoff game in that time. Colts are always “trending in the right direction.” That’s what mediocre teams do…but never get to the next level.

 

Steichen is awesome…so why continue to let Ballard limit the ceiling of this team.
 

 

[DavePSL]

One of the most exciting things about this offseason for me is to see if Ballard will be influenced by Steichen and we should be able to tell. I don't think Reich had or demanded any influence in Ballard's picks or at least we never heard about it. I think we will hear about Steichen's influence, and I think Ballard will be fine as long as he takes that input. IMO, Steichen has a very good pulse on what he needs to make this team explosive and better. I do not think Shaq or other players would have been held accountable if Steichen wasn't here and that bodes well for the Colts future. It just means that there is more than one boss with say in the building now on who and how this team is built moving forward.

[ColtStrong2013]

21 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

Steichen is awesome…so why continue to let Ballard limit the ceiling of this team

because, uh, news flash… Steichen came here because of Ballard. 
 

Their ideals are aligned. If you think Steichen wasn’t massively influenced by the vision of drafting Anthony Richardson, I’m not sure what to tell you. Steichen could have told Ballard no, you do realize that right? He would have had plenty of other opportunities. And according to you and half of this board, plenty of opportunities to go to a place with a better GM. Except he didn’t. He chose to come to Indianapolis and work with Chris Ballard. 

[ColtStrong2013]

“Shane we need to inform you that we’ve fired Chris Ballard.” -Jim Irsay 

 

“what? Why?” - Shane 

 

“it’s time to move on.” -irsay

 

”Mr. Irsay, Chris hired me, you let him handle that entire process remember?” 
 

“yeah it doesn’t matter now. We’ll be naming a gm soon.” - Irsay
 

“I don’t know what to say. Chris and I were aligned on what the goals were going forward. We were close to exceeding every expectation with minshew, which wasn’t the plan as you know.” -Shane 

 

“listen, @shasta519, @OLD FAN MAN , turtle man @PRnum1, and the gang on the colts forum wanted him gone… and he’s gone so it’s time to move on Shane…” - Irsay 

 

“The colts forum, are you kidding me?” 

 

“no Shane… they know football. Let me tell you. turtleman not only didn’t want us to NOT pick cj stroud or Anthony, he didn’t want us to pick anyone at all last draft. I think he’s brilliant. I’m actually thinking about naming him assistant co-owner.” 

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Seems like Dorsey was a jerk, which is what got him fired. I don't think that would be a factor with Ballard and the Colts. And I think it's interesting that Dorsey got fired right after Ballard left, like maybe Ballard was the counterweight to Dorsey, and once Ballard was gone they knew that Dorsey's management style would cause problems. That's just me theorizing... 

 

But Dorsey was an exceptional roster builder, there's no question about that. Which is why it was so shocking when he got fired.

I don’t really know the circumstances of his firing…it was just an example of ousting a successful GM with an internal transition plan. 

But it did seem like Ballard liked him. 

 

[ColtStrong2013]

11 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

I don’t really know the circumstances of his firing…it was just an example of ousting a successful GM with an internal transition plan. 

But it did seem like Ballard liked him. 

 

 

They were pretty close. I remember reading something some time ago about John Dorsey being pretty unorganized with stuff and after Ballard left, who many say was ultra-organized almost to a fault, it became more noticeable, and problems started coming up quickly. I'll see if I can find the article. 

 

Found it:

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/06/29/kansas-city-chiefs-john-dorsey-fired-nfl-notebook