Why are some teams always in playoff contention

[DougDew]

32 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Not necessarily. I'm not sure you are one that attacks people in a negative manner. I mean- I was literally told last night that I likely jerk off in a Chris Ballard sock puppet... LOL. 

No.  I never do that, unless its a rare response to some who attack me in that manner for being "negative" (which is really me not living in a bubble of positivity)

[2006Coltsbestever]

Nobody in here lives in a bubble of positivity. I and everyone else knows being critical of the team is ok at times when we play bad, I am critical at times of the team, and I am sick of missing the playoffs. I have said it 1000 times. The people that live in a bubble of negativity that troll and never have nothing good to say about the team is the problem in here. Some people calling our QB glass, some saying stuff like Levis is way better when he isn't, and saying our GM is trash is really something to be proud of when it isn't true, keep it up you negative people, you make us laugh anymore and really look foolish. With our winning history, some will never get it and it is sad to live that way IMO. 

 

Here are the greatest franchises in the SB era:

Patriots - they haven't won a Playoff game since 2018

 

Steelers - They haven't won a Playoff game since 2016

 

Cowboys - They haven't won a SB since 1995

 

49ers - They haven't won a SB since 1994

 

Point is, franchises go through slumps, if you can't accept it, go root for the Jags, oh wait, they were good for 1 year and now finished with the same record as us. Go root for Tennessee, oh wait they wasted Henry's career and now suck again. Better yet, fly down to Houston and kiss Stroud's rear end, a guy that barely beat our backup QB. Let's see what he does against a real QB when AR takes him on, that is going to be funny. AR was up 14-0 at Houston before leaving the game, just keep that in mind.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

Not necessarily. I'm not sure you are one that attacks people in a negative manner. I mean- I was literally told last night that I likely jerk off in a Chris Ballard sock puppet... LOL. 

 

Wait...that's what you thought I meant?!? LOL.

 

To be fair, you did fire first. I was merely responding in kind.

 

But I actually rarely attack anybody on this site.

[DattMavis]

I’ve been a Ballard apologist, but I think his single biggest issue was not rebuilding when it was required. After we lost Luck, he wanted to stay in the playoffs with the same team, but with any number of sub-par QBs. Getting the franchise QB is usually when a team makes that big jump. I think we finally have ours in AR, but it took him 5 years and essentially accidentally falling into it. Who honestly thought Matt Ryan would be anything more than a 1 or 2 year bandaid? We’re  lucky he was as terrible as he was and he gave us AR.

 

I’m willing to start the clock over on Ballard and give him three years. If Nick Caserio can do it to the Texans in three years with extreme dysfunction and a terrible roster, we’ll see if Ballard can do it with a healthy culture and a good roster.

If we don’t win the division within three years, I’m willing to admit I was wrong about Ballard.

[ColtStrong2013]

32 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

Wait...that's what you thought I meant?!? LOL.

 

To be fair, you did fire first. I was merely responding in kind.

 

But I actually rarely attack anybody on this site.

Don’t even pretend to have meant something else… lol. 
 

I’m not sure I even meant for you to be lumped into the negative Nancy group I was referring to, if that is how you took it. And it wasn’t fair for me to “fire first” and include you in the fictional short-story dialogue that I created.  You were just easy target for commenting recently on this thread, so it seemed relevant.

[ColtStrong2013]

22 minutes ago, DattMavis said:

I’ve been a Ballard apologist, but I think his single biggest issue was not rebuilding when it was required. After we lost Luck, he wanted to stay in the playoffs with the same team, but with any number of sub-par QBs. Getting the franchise QB is usually when a team makes that big jump. I think we finally have ours in AR, but it took him 5 years and essentially accidentally falling into it. Who honestly thought Matt Ryan would be anything more than a 1 or 2 year bandaid? We’re  lucky he was as terrible as he was and he gave us AR.

 

I’m willing to start the clock over on Ballard and give him three years. If Nick Caserio can do it to the Texans in three years with extreme dysfunction and a terrible roster, we’ll see if Ballard can do it with a healthy culture and a good roster.

If we don’t win the division within three years, I’m willing to admit I was wrong about Ballard.

his biggest issue was being arrogant to think it wasn’t “about any one guy” after Luck retired and believing he could build it without addressing the qb spot aggressively. It is about one guy. It was with Peyton Manning. It was with Andrew Luck. And it certainly is with CJ Stroud in Houston. You take any of those “one guy” away and the results are significantly different. It’s a qb driven league. So that’s his biggest knock, yes. I always wonder if he didn’t have his hands tied early for the concern that Luck might come back. Idk on that, and I know that he had some good opportunities in 2020 to be aggressive, and he chose to be on the defensive line with Buckner. 
 

For me, and it’s worth repeating over and over, you just hope he shows he has learned big lessons. I think drafting AR/hiring Steichen was a big sign that he did. Just bad luck that AR was knocked out for the season or else we’d all likely have a much different outlook going forward. 

[Superman]

20 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

I always wonder if he didn’t have his hands tied early for the concern that Luck might come back. Idk on that, and I know that he had some good opportunities in 2020 to be aggressive, and he chose to be on the defensive line with Buckner. 

 

I hadn't really thought about that in a while. I never allowed myself to seriously entertain the possibility that Luck might come back, and I think it's probably malpractice if Ballard got caught up in that thinking. And I guess you're saying maybe Irsay wanted to keep the seat warm in case Luck changed his mind, which is possible, but I think unlikely. It's an interesting thought, though.

 

For me, I think they laid a foundation and were ready for a strong three year push from 2019 to 2021, and they tried to salvage as much of that as they could. They were stuck with Brissett for 2019, but they were clearly thinking they had a good enough team to be in the playoffs the next two years. I think that's accurate -- we finished half a game behind the Titans in 2020, and then the famous collapse the next year. 

 

They should have come out of the 2020 draft with the prospective QB of the future. Instead, we signed Rivers, and traded for Buckner (and I really like Buckner). It's obvious why they did what they did, but it didn't work out.

 

20 hours ago, DattMavis said:

I’m willing to start the clock over on Ballard and give him three years. If Nick Caserio can do it to the Texans in three years with extreme dysfunction and a terrible roster, we’ll see if Ballard can do it with a healthy culture and a good roster.

 

I think that's just what Irsay did when he fired Reich and kept Ballard. And it's why the 'seven years, no division titles' criticism rings hollow to me. It's fine to disagree with the decision to keep Ballard, but it seems pretty obvious that the organization hit the reset button after 2022. And I'd argue that things are off to a solid start since then.

[DougDew]

37 minutes ago, Superman said:

I never allowed myself to seriously entertain the possibility that Luck might come back, and I think it's probably malpractice if Ballard got caught up in that thinking.

Ballard said that Luck was not coming back as early as is first presser on the matter, IIRC.  Many others were holding out hope, and Ballard said that he has to assume that Luck won't ever be here.  Whether he meant it, who knows, but he sounded pretty convincing then.

[ColtStrong2013]

22 minutes ago, DougDew said:

1 hour ago, Superman said:

I never allowed myself to seriously entertain the possibility that Luck might come back, and I think it's probably malpractice if Ballard got caught up in that thinking.

Ballard said that Luck was not coming back as early as is first presser on the matter, IIRC.  Many others were holding out hope, and Ballard said that he has to assume that Luck won't ever be here.  Whether he meant it, who knows, but he sounded pretty convincing then.

that’s why I wonder if he had his hands tied by Irsay regarding spending a first round pick in ‘20 on a qb to pair with rivers. They scouted Herbert and love both. They essentially reached out to Luck every year to keep dialogue in the event he wanted to stage a comeback. Even the slightest hope (especially by the owner) can alter decision making. The Wentz move is the interesting one as it was Reich that stuck his neck out for it. Either Ballard didn’t have much of a say on that, or felt the options were poor enough to go along with Reich’s willingness to vouch for the guy. “You can take most of the credit for his success, but you can also take the blame for his failure.” 

[ADnum1]

On 1/17/2024 at 12:07 AM, NewColtsFan said:

I’ve shared this story recently but it’s worth repeating.    At about the midway point of the season PFF put out a ranking of GMs.  They ranked Ballard 14th.   I don’t think anyone here complained.  No Ballard supporter said he was top-5, or even top-10.   I’m as big a Ballard supporter as there is here, and I called it fair and not unreasonable.  
 

So it seems you’re upset that there isn’t an outpouring of complaints, you want more posters screaming for Ballard’s head.   You see this year as a down year because the Colts didn’t beat Houston.  You don’t see this as a great year because we nearly reached the playoffs using our backup QB for about 75 percent of the season.  
 

I just don’t see any White Knighting going on.   Ballard is tied to AR and so he likely has 2-3 years to show what he can become.   If he doesn’t pan out, Ballard is done.  But if AR becomes the QB most want him to be, then Ballard will be safe. 
 

I think you’ve dramatically over-stated your case. 

I would say 15-20.  He's not great but not bad enough to be fired.

 

15-20 equals a 9-8 record.  He's a middle of the pack GM and the Colts are a middle of the pack team.

 

Regardless of my opinion, I think its worth posting again that he is tied to AR, hence the "reset" some other posters mention.

 

Ballard has his work cut out for him.  He has to give AR weapons like AJ Brown and Devante Smith. Fix the oline, find a pass rusher etc.

 

My hope is that Steichen has alot of input in the draft and Shane can really look at players and find some good ones.  Steichen had alot to do with the eagles rebuild at least on the offensive side of the ball.

 

Has it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps Ballard leans on RAS scores so much because he can't truly evaluate good players ?

[ColtStrong2013]

Just now, PRnum1 said:

 

My hope is that Steichen has alot of input in the draft and Shane can really look at players and find some good one.  Steichen had alot to do with the eagles rebuild at least on the offensive side of the ball.

 

Has it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps Ballard leans on RAS scores so much because he can't truly evaluate good players ?

Shane will be heavily involved. There is no doubt. I think the o-line’s improvement (and Ballard’s continued belief of constant investment in the trenches) as well as having established weapons in Pittman (if he’s retained), downs and a top back in JT is a good starting point to add to for Richardson to be successful. I don’t think it’s going to take as much as some think it may. Of course, we want to add as much firepower as possible. 
 

regarding the scouting, I don’t know. I tend to agree with @DougDew on being lucky in the draft- but putting yourself in position to be is a big part of that. If they like certain traits of players and they have option of a few guys at a certain position throughout the draft, who can reasonably predict who is going to be the one to excel in the nfl? Using measurables and your interviews to gauge the type of worker they look to be seems to be a pretty solid philosophy when picking players. 
 

I think Ballard tries to outsmart the draft process by trading down and acquiring more possibilities of hitting maybe a little too much. But I can’t reasonably say that, because I only know so much about the process. 

[DougDew]

42 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

that’s why I wonder if he had his hands tied by Irsay regarding spending a first round pick in ‘20 on a qb to pair with rivers. They scouted Herbert and love both. They essentially reached out to Luck every year to keep dialogue in the event he wanted to stage a comeback. Even the slightest hope (especially by the owner) can alter decision making. The Wentz move is the interesting one as it was Reich that stuck his neck out for it. Either Ballard didn’t have much of a say on that, or felt the options were poor enough to go along with Reich’s willingness to vouch for the guy. “You can take most of the credit for his success, but you can also take the blame for his failure.” 

Ah, ok.  You mean that Irsay may have directly told Ballard to not invest in a younger QB because Irsay was holding out hope for a Luck return.  That would be some pretty heavy meddling though. 

[Superman]

31 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

that’s why I wonder if he had his hands tied by Irsay regarding spending a first round pick in ‘20 on a qb to pair with rivers. They scouted Herbert and love both. They essentially reached out to Luck every year to keep dialogue in the event he wanted to stage a comeback. Even the slightest hope (especially by the owner) can alter decision making. The Wentz move is the interesting one as it was Reich that stuck his neck out for it. Either Ballard didn’t have much of a say on that, or felt the options were poor enough to go along with Reich’s willingness to vouch for the guy. “You can take most of the credit for his success, but you can also take the blame for his failure.” 

 

Irsay did make statements indicating his hope that Luck would change his mind, but I doubt that he did anything to discourage drafting a QB 'just in case.' And if Ballard allowed his decision making to be influenced by Irsay's hopefulness, then that's bad work on his part.

 

I wouldn't say that Ballard didn't have much of a say on the Wentz decision. I think he and Irsay deferred to Reich and got him the QB that he was banging the table for. And I think 2020 was similar; I don't think we sign Rivers if Reich isn't the HC. The three main decision makers were involved in the decision, but it's pretty obvious that Reich was the strongest advocate for the choices that were made in those years.

 

And that's not to say that they would have drafted Herbert or Love, although that would have been nice. But knowing that they felt they had built a contention-quality roster, which was undermined by the QB situation, it makes sense that they would have been slanted toward a veteran rather than waiting for a rookie to develop.

 

Either way, I think firing Reich and keeping Ballard, then immediately drafting a QB (along with some of the comments made by all three men along the way), gives us some insight into Irsay's thinking on the way the QB situation was handled.

[DougDew]

26 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

regarding the scouting, I don’t know. I tend to agree with @DougDew on being lucky in the draft- but putting yourself in position to be is a big part of that. If they like certain traits of players and they have option of a few guys at a certain position throughout the draft, who can reasonably predict who is going to be the one to excel in the nfl? Using measurables and your interviews to gauge the type of worker they look to be seems to be a pretty solid philosophy when picking players. 

My lucky comment was to counter the notion of a steal, as far as what it implies.  Scouting and due diligence, etc. is obviously paramount to drafting.

 

I'd also say that the 49ers got pretty lucky with Purdy.  I mean, you pass up a near-all-pro Qb 7 times...and so does every other team.  No way that anybody's scouting/due diligence saw that.

[Superman]

51 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

My hope is that Steichen has alot of input in the draft and Shane can really look at players and find some good ones.  Steichen had alot to do with the eagles rebuild at least on the offensive side of the ball.

 

Has it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps Ballard leans on RAS scores so much because he can't truly evaluate good players ?

 

This is an interesting angle to me. You are discrediting Ballard's ability to evaluate players while propping up Steichen's ability to evaluate players on offense. I'm not sure why Steichen is getting credit for the Eagles' roster decisions when their front office is one of the best in the NFL. Steichen was with the Chargers when Hurts and Goedert were drafted, and was in the building for three months when they drafted DeVonta Smith.

 

I hope Steichen helps Ballard put together a more dynamic roster on offense (and in general), but I wonder why he's getting the reputation as a guy who is going to save the Colts from Chris Ballard his perceived poor player evaluation.

 

And the RAS thing is just weird, and has taken on a mind of its own. 

[DougDew]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

And the RAS thing is just weird, and has taken on a mind of its own.

As is common, use of terms migrate into becoming simple explanations for more complex things. 

 

However, Ballard has definitely valued RAS, as can be seen with nearly each draft pick.  Perhaps folks are simply wanting to see a bit more production along with the RAS.  Or perhaps CB has more reliance on RAS as a component to the package of attributes that are evaluated.

 

Jelani Woods, for example.  He tested out nearly a perfect 10.  That RAS did not show up in college production in either school he was at, IIRC...elite RAS did not equate elite production.  And Ballard said that it was a toss up between Woods and AP at pick 53, so he valued Woods very highly.  Woods' issues this season aside, he does not appear to be the second coming of George Kittle where I would think a pick 53 slot would suggest how he would develop.  Just seems that CB valued Woods that highly based on the 10 RAS, where production and other attributes would have dropped him....and did...to 74 where the other GMs left him available.

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

As is common, use of terms migrate into becoming simple explanations for more complex things. 

 

However, Ballard has definitely valued RAS, as can be seen with nearly each draft pick.  Perhaps folks are simply wanting to see a bit more production along with the RAS.  Or perhaps CB has more reliance on RAS as a component to the package of attributes that are evaluated.

 

Jelani Woods, for example.  He tested out nearly a perfect 10.  That RAS did not show up in college production in either school he was at, IIRC...elite RAS did not equate elite production.  And Ballard said that it was a toss up between Woods and AP at pick 53, so he valued Woods very highly.  Woods' issues this season aside, he does not appear to be the second coming of George Kittle where I would think a pick 53 slot would suggest how he would develop.  Just seems that CB valued Woods that highly based on the 10 RAS, where production and other attributes would have dropped him....and did...to 74 where the other GMs left him available.

 

There's a lot that can be said about this. But before my point is lost, I'm saying that I think suggesting that Ballard and his staff can't evaluate players so they just draft based on RAS score is a pretty crazy thing to say.

 

As for the rest, I think people have different ideas of how teams evaluate players and put together their draft boards, and then how decisions are made on draft day. And I'm pretty confident that none of us really knows the process well enough to speak definitively on it. But I do think some of these discussions take place mostly in the margins, which gets to be tedious. For example, if a GM was perceived as favoring college production over athletic testing, I think people would be critical of that approach.

 

My thinking is that there are multiple factors involved in player evaluation, including college production and athletic testing. I don't think this is a situation where you can make a pie chart to represent how Ballard or any GM values each factor, across the board. I think every evaluation is different. 

 

However, the main value in athletic testing is in creating a baseline for physical ability and performance. In general, players of a certain physical profile are more likely to succeed in the NFL, and players who don't measure up can basically be eliminated from consideration. I don't think Ballard or anyone else is saying 'we don't know how to predict what players will be good, so let's just take the best athletes and see what happens.' Yet, that's pretty much what PR's theory above suggests.

[Scott Pennock]

Is this rhetorical or a real question?

 

Franchises that are good for a decade or longer come down to two common denominators:

 

great coach

 

great qb

 

[Myles]

17 minutes ago, Scott Pennock said:

Is this rhetorical or a real question?

 

Franchises that are good for a decade or longer come down to two common denominators:

 

great coach

 

great qb

 

That and a good owner who drives consistency.    The Steelers fit that mold.

[masterlock]

I'd say it starts with the GM (or de facto GM), since the GM is ultimately responsible for the roster and other staff, including QB, coach, scouts, etc. 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

As is common, use of terms migrate into becoming simple explanations for more complex things. 

 

However, Ballard has definitely valued RAS, as can be seen with nearly each draft pick.  Perhaps folks are simply wanting to see a bit more production along with the RAS.  Or perhaps CB has more reliance on RAS as a component to the package of attributes that are evaluated.

 

Jelani Woods, for example.  He tested out nearly a perfect 10.  That RAS did not show up in college production in either school he was at, IIRC...elite RAS did not equate elite production.  And Ballard said that it was a toss up between Woods and AP at pick 53, so he valued Woods very highly.  Woods' issues this season aside, he does not appear to be the second coming of George Kittle where I would think a pick 53 slot would suggest how he would develop.  Just seems that CB valued Woods that highly based on the 10 RAS, where production and other attributes would have dropped him....and did...to 74 where the other GMs left him available.

How dishonest can you be?

 

Here you are trashing Woods and it seems you’re unaware that he didn’t play this year.   At all.   Not playing has a tendency to hold down production.   But you either don’t know Woods didn’t play or made a bogus argument.   Which is it?   
 

Woods spent his first three years at Okla State where he was the primary blocking tight end.   He transferred to Virginia where he became the primary receiving tight end, but UVA didn’t pass all that much so Woods didn’t have great stats.  
 

Then you launch into yet another veiled attack on Ballard, where you imply that CB misevaluated Woods because he considered taking him at 53, but the other GMs left him until pick 74.   It doesn’t even occur to you that Ballard ALSO left Woods until 74, and that’s where he took him.  So instead of giving Ballard credit for getting the players he wanted you write it as a Ballard error in judgement.   This is the same thinking as when you once said that Raimann can’t be that good because Ballard drafted him AFTER Woods.  How does that one look with hindsight?  
 

Sorry Doug….  But you don’t hide your contempt for Ballard very well.  And I’d be fine with that if you would simply be honest.   But the last time I said this you responded with….    What?   Me?   Not like Ballard?!?   Noooo!   

And yet here we are again. 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

How dishonest can you be?

 

Here you are trashing Woods and it seems you’re unaware that he didn’t play this year.   At all.   Not playing has a tendency to hold down production.   But you either don’t know Woods didn’t play or made a bogus argument.   Which is it?   
 

Woods spent his first three years at Okla State where he was the primary blocking tight end.   He transferred to Virginia where he became the primary receiving tight end, but UVA didn’t pass all that much so Woods didn’t have great stats.  
 

Then you launch into yet another veiled attack on Ballard, where you imply that CB misevaluated Woods because he considered taking him at 53, but the other GMs left him until pick 74.   It doesn’t even occur to you that Ballard ALSO left Woods until 74, and that’s where he took him.  So instead of giving Ballard credit for getting the players he wanted you write it as a Ballard error in judgement.   This is the same thinking as when you once said that Raimann can’t be that good because Ballard drafted him AFTER Woods.  How does that one look with hindsight?  
 

Sorry Doug….  But you don’t hide your contempt for Ballard very well.  And I’d be fine with that if you would simply be honest.   But the last time I said this you responded with….    What?   Me?   Not like Ballard?!?   Noooo!   

And yet here we are again. 

JFC.  He said it was a toss up between AP and Woods at 53.  He took the "wide out".  Woods fell to 74 because nobody else valued him close to 53, only Ballard.  Why is mentioning that factual situation contempt for Ballard?

 

Raimann is a good player, projected to be a good player but not an early great player.  How is it "contempt for Ballard" because I think the word "lucky" makes more intelligent sense than the word "steal" .  

 

What's wrong with you, and your obsession of whether or not I "really have contempt for Ballard or not".   You seem to have a (false) narrative, and get hugely frustrated trying to prove it.  Your narrative is false, so you will never prove it.

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

I'm saying that I think suggesting that Ballard and his staff can't evaluate players so they just draft based on RAS score is a pretty crazy thing to say.

I agree.  But you said to Chad that you are making this point for discussion purposes.  So I assume that you don't think very many posters here believe that. 

 

The use of "RAS" has become a simple label of a more complex thought...like the one you described, but I don't think many believe your suggestion above..  JMO.

[Superman]

54 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I agree.  But you said to Chad that you are making this point for discussion purposes.  So I assume that you don't think very many posters here believe that. 

 

The use of "RAS" has become a simple label of a more complex thought...like the one you described, but I don't think many believe your suggestion above..  JMO.

 

Two different, but similar conversations.

 

This is not my suggestion. In this thread, PRnum1 offers it as a theory. And I think it's pretty far-fetched. But I also see a lot of posters making derisive comments about RAS as it relates to Ballard's draft strategy, so I think it's very possible that people believe this theory, or a version of it, to some degree.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

JFC.  He said it was a toss up between AP and Woods at 53.  He took the "wide out".  Woods fell to 74 because nobody else valued him close to 53, only Ballard.  Why is mentioning that factual situation contempt for Ballard?

 

Raimann is a good player, projected to be a good player but not an early great player.  How is it "contempt for Ballard" because I think the word "lucky" makes more intelligent sense than the word "steal" .  

 

What's wrong with you, and your obsession of whether or not I "really have contempt for Ballard or not".   You seem to have a (false) narrative, and get hugely frustrated trying to prove it.  Your narrative is false, so you will never prove it.

Doug….    You continue to tell half truths and pretend that it’s the whole truth.   
 

You have no idea — none — what any other team thought about Jelani Woods.  Just as Ballard decided between Pierce and Woods, you have no idea if any other did the same.   And you have no idea if any other team would’ve taken Woods at 74,  75, 76 or any other number.  Your comments are complete speculation with zero to back it up.   
 

And the proof has been backed up for years.   You have a 6-year documented history of framing most every Ballard decision as bad or wrong.  2018 thru 2023.  
 

As for Raimann, Ballard correctly decided that Raimann would last to 77 because he was then 24 years old and would be 25 when the season started.   And now you call him a “good” player.  Mighty begrudging of you.  But you continue to show your cards by calling Ballard lucky.  You never give him credit, you always find a way to frame things in the negative.  
 

If I call your Ballard views dishonest,  I think it’s an understatement.  Six years of bad arguments is all the proof anyone would need. 

[DougDew]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Two different, but similar conversations.

 

This is not my suggestion. In this thread, PRnum1 offers it as a theory. And I think it's pretty far-fetched. But I also see a lot of posters making derisive comments about RAS as it relates to Ballard's draft strategy, so I think it's very possible that people believe this theory, or a version of it, to some degree.

Yeah, I got the threads mixed up. 

 

As you know, there are a lot of comments that lack nuance and rush to the absolute.  Maybe that makes things easier to understand, IDK.  I don't think you will have much luck educating someone who already doesn't see nuance.

[DougDew]

35 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Doug….    You continue to tell half truths and pretend that it’s the whole truth.   
 

You have no idea — none — what any other team thought about Jelani Woods.  Just as Ballard decided between Pierce and Woods, you have no idea if any other did the same.   And you have no idea if any other team would’ve taken Woods at 74,  75, 76 or any other number.  Your comments are complete speculation with zero to back it up.   
 

And the proof has been backed up for years.   You have a 6-year documented history of framing most every Ballard decision as bad or wrong.  2018 thru 2023.  
 

As for Raimann, Ballard correctly decided that Raimann would last to 77 because he was then 24 years old and would be 25 when the season started.   And now you call him a “good” player.  Mighty begrudging of you.  But you continue to show your cards by calling Ballard lucky.  You never give him credit, you always find a way to frame things in the negative.  
 

If I call your Ballard views dishonest,  I think it’s an understatement.  Six years of bad arguments is all the proof anyone would need. 

You are taking this thread somewhere nobody cares about.  

 

For six years, we have gone back and forth because you persistently confront me to tell me what my opinion is.  Now, its that I have contempt for Ballard, and have had it for 6 years.  

 

Maybe you are just a bully, and have confronted me over posts I have made that you didn't like...and all bully's get frustrated when they swing and miss...and the target doesn't back down. 

 

• When Luck was still playing, I commented that it was not "Grigsys Oline" that got Luck killed, but that him holding the  ball too long was a big contributor, you confronted me (as did others).
• I said I did not like the Hooker pick...first pick right off...when the forum loved it.  You confronted my over my non-love of the pick.
• I was not enthused over the Nelson pick...never hated it...just not enthused like the rest of the forum.  I was one of the few posters back then who introduced...introduced...the concept of positional value to many on the forum.  You confronted me over my comments.
• When Hines was a backup RB, I said I couldn't see why he has a roster spot as a backup RB.  This is when the forum was praising him for "all of the things he could do"  and that he was a star that was just not being used correctly.  You confronted me over my comment about Hines.
• I commented that JT is exactly the RB he was in college, straight ahead between the tackles mainly big-play fast guy without elite shake and bake.  You've said that me not saying he's elite is some passive shot at Ballard.
• And throughout those 6 years, I have said that we will never reach the level of perennial playoff contender by picking elite players in less valuable positions, and, that we need playmakers.  That reality has finally hit a lot of members like a 2 x 4 upside the head, because that's all I hardly read anymore, about how we need playmakers.

Maybe bullies just hate it when the target doesn't back down and is a lot more right than wrong.  Must be frustrating.

 

If you notice, closely if you can, none of those positions are actually CRITICAL of Ballard.  They merely burst a gush bubble that was formed over "his genius".  Please don't confuse bursting a gush bubble with contempt.  

 

I liked the Smith, Leonard, Pitt, JT, Cross, Blackmon, AP, Raimann, and many other picks based upon the combo of skill, need, and draft spot.  Those are not the sexy picks people talk about, so they don't get much press.

 

Next, since I won't gush over AR until he sustains gushability for a couple of seasons...if he does...you might also confuse my nongushy comments with me trying to find a reason to take a passive passive shot at Ballard because of my "contempt".

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

You are taking this thread somewhere nobody cares about.  

 

For six years, we have gone back and forth because you persistently confront me to tell me what my opinion is.  Now, its that I have contempt for Ballard, and have had it for 6 years.  

 

Maybe you are just a bully, and have confronted me over posts I have made that you didn't like...and all bully's get frustrated when they swing and miss...and the target doesn't back down. 

 

• When Luck was still playing, I commented that it was not "Grigsys Oline" that got Luck killed, but that him holding the  ball too long was a big contributor, you confronted me (as did others).

You have me confused with someone else.  I didn’t blame Grigson, and I agreed that Luck was partly to blame by holding the ball too long.   This has always been my position.   Sorry

• I said I did not like the Hooker pick...first pick right off...when the forum loved it.  You confronted my over my non-love of the pick.

Different recollections:  There was great discussion leading up to the draft over Hooker.  The consensus was he’d never last to pick 15, but if he did fall, the Colts should rush the pick up.   If you didn’t like the pick, I’m sure I laughed, but seriously doubt there was much “confrontation.”   But where there was great confrontation was when you casually dismissed the seriousness of the injury, which turned out to be devastating.  I remember being furious with you over your casual indifference and being spectacularly wrong.  The injury took years for Hooker to get over. 

• I was not enthused over the Nelson pick...never hated it...just not enthused like the rest of the forum.  I was one of the few posters back then who introduced...introduced...the concept of positional value to many on the forum.  You confronted me over my comments.

Done patting yourself on the back?  
More revisionist history.  And Ballard literally laughed at you.  But the worst part of your argument is that you never changed, even when Nelson was posting three Hall of Fame seasons in a row, it didn’t matter to you.  Stuck on a bad argument because you couldn’t accept the idea of an exception to the rule.  “Never hated it”?!?  lol

• When Hines was a backup RB, I said I couldn't see why he has a roster spot as a backup RB.  This is when the forum was praising him for "all of the things he could do"  and that he was a star that was just not being used correctly.  You confronted me over my comment about Hines.

Hines could run the ball,  catch the ball, return kicks and punts.   You couldn’t find value in that.   It was great when he scored two long TDs on a MNF game the same week you publicly trashed him!   Classic! 

• I commented that JT is exactly the RB he was in college, straight ahead between the tackles mainly big-play fast guy without elite shake and bake.  You've said that me not saying he's elite is some passive shot at Ballard.

Doug….   As recently as two weeks ago, you wrote this sentence: “Jonathan Taylor sucks and has sucked the 4 years he’s been a Colt.”   The reason I remember so many of your posts is you’re the only poster who would write this.  Others might agree with you,  but you actually write this nonsense.  It’s easy to remember.   If you want to defend THAT, be my guest!  Remember, you didn’t say he’s not elite, or even he’s over-rated.  You said he sucks and has always sucked as a Colt.  Good luck with that!  

• And throughout those 6 years, I have said that we will never reach the level of perennial playoff contender by picking elite players in less valuable positions, and, that we need playmakers.  That reality has finally hit a lot of members like a 2 x 4 upside the head, because that's all I hardly read anymore, about how we need playmakers.

 

 

Maybe bullies just hate it when the target doesn't back down and is a lot more right than wrong.  Must be frustrating.

 

If you notice, closely if you can, none of those positions are actually CRITICAL of Ballard.  They merely burst a gush bubble that was formed over "his genius".  Please don't confuse bursting a gush bubble with contempt.  
 

Doug….  You’re re-writing history again.  Remember THREE times in 2023 you wrote the same post, about how Ballard has drafted the wrong positions.  You listed them and you included guys like Smith and Leonard and Pitt, not by name, but by position.   How do you write that and act as if that’s not a criticism over what Ballard has done?   Only you know those reasons.   Saying now you liked these guys is laughable.   That doesn’t pass the smell test. 

 

I liked the Smith, Leonard, Pitt, JT, Cross, Blackmon, AP, Raimann, and many other picks based upon the combo of skill, need, and draft spot.  Those are not the sexy picks people talk about, so they don't get much press.

 

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

 

 

[ColtStrong2013]

.

[ColtStrong2013]

50 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

  2 hours ago, DougDew said:

You are taking this thread somewhere nobody cares about.  

 

For six years, we have gone back and forth because you persistently confront me to tell me what my opinion is.  Now, its that I have contempt for Ballard, and have had it for 6 years.  

 

Maybe you are just a bully, and have confronted me over posts I have made that you didn't like...and all bully's get frustrated when they swing and miss...and the target doesn't back down. 

 

• When Luck was still playing, I commented that it was not "Grigsys Oline" that got Luck killed, but that him holding the  ball too long was a big contributor, you confronted me (as did others).

You have me confused with someone else.  I didn’t blame Grigson, and I agreed that Luck was partly to blame by holding the ball too long.   This has always been my position.   Sorry

• I said I did not like the Hooker pick...first pick right off...when the forum loved it.  You confronted my over my non-love of the pick.

Different recollections:  There was great discussion leading up to the draft over Hooker.  The consensus was he’d never last to pick 15, but if he did fall, the Colts should rush the pick up.   If you didn’t like the pick, I’m sure I laughed, but seriously doubt there was much “confrontation.”   But where there was great confrontation was when you casually dismissed the seriousness of the injury, which turned out to be devastating.  I remember being furious with you over your casual indifference and being spectacularly wrong.  The injury took years for Hooker to get over. 

• I was not enthused over the Nelson pick...never hated it...just not enthused like the rest of the forum.  I was one of the few posters back then who introduced...introduced...the concept of positional value to many on the forum.  You confronted me over my comments.

Done patting yourself on the back?  
More revisionist history.  And Ballard literally laughed at you.  But the worst part of your argument is that you never changed, even when Nelson was posting three Hall of Fame seasons in a row, it didn’t matter to you.  Stuck on a bad argument because you couldn’t accept the idea of an exception to the rule.  “Never hated it”?!?  lol

• When Hines was a backup RB, I said I couldn't see why he has a roster spot as a backup RB.  This is when the forum was praising him for "all of the things he could do"  and that he was a star that was just not being used correctly.  You confronted me over my comment about Hines.

Hines could run the ball,  catch the ball, return kicks and punts.   You couldn’t find value in that.   It was great when he scored two long TDs on a MNF game the same week you publicly trashed him!   Classic! 

• I commented that JT is exactly the RB he was in college, straight ahead between the tackles mainly big-play fast guy without elite shake and bake.  You've said that me not saying he's elite is some passive shot at Ballard.

Doug….   As recently as two weeks ago, you wrote this sentence: “Jonathan Taylor sucks and has sucked the 4 years he’s been a Colt.”   The reason I remember so many of your posts is you’re the only poster who would write this.  Others might agree with you,  but you actually write this nonsense.  It’s easy to remember.   If you want to defend THAT, be my guest!  Remember, you didn’t say he’s not elite, or even he’s over-rated.  You said he sucks and has always sucked as a Colt.  Good luck with that!  

• And throughout those 6 years, I have said that we will never reach the level of perennial playoff contender by picking elite players in less valuable positions, and, that we need playmakers.  That reality has finally hit a lot of members like a 2 x 4 upside the head, because that's all I hardly read anymore, about how we need playmakers.

 

 

Maybe bullies just hate it when the target doesn't back down and is a lot more right than wrong.  Must be frustrating.

 

If you notice, closely if you can, none of those positions are actually CRITICAL of Ballard.  They merely burst a gush bubble that was formed over "his genius".  Please don't confuse bursting a gush bubble with contempt.  
 

Doug….  You’re re-writing history again.  Remember THREE times in 2023 you wrote the same post, about how Ballard has drafted the wrong positions.  You listed them and you included guys like Smith and Leonard and Pitt, not by name, but by position.   How do you write that and act as if that’s not a criticism over what Ballard has done?   Only you know those reasons.   Saying now you liked these guys is laughable.   That doesn’t pass the smell test. 

 

I liked the Smith, Leonard, Pitt, JT, Cross, Blackmon, AP, Raimann, and many other picks based upon the combo of skill, need, and draft spot.  Those are not the sexy picks people talk about, so they don't get much press.

My forum game is lacking. I haven't been keeping receipts.

[NewColtsFan]

14 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

My forum game is lacking. I haven't been keeping receipts.

It’s not that I keep receipts.   It’s that Doug’s viewpoints are unique and memorable.   He also objects to being held accountable.  

[OLD FAN MAN]

On 1/17/2024 at 1:03 PM, DougDew said:

Just a word here, since I probably fall into your negative nancy bucket of forum members.

 

Addressing weaknesses...focusing on the negative...is fundamental to solving problems and improving. Its not a way of life, its a tactic.  Focusing on the negative, and looking for as many negatives as you can find, solves problems. 

 

Its easy for many of us who have careers in problem solving to divorce problem solving thinking when it comes to enjoying personal life.

 

Positive mindedness goes towards helping feelings.  And I hope that folks who have that mindset on internet forums don't also choose to see no problems in their personal lives when there may be plenty.

some people cant face reality so they stay positive in la la land

[ColtStrong2013]

4 hours ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

some people cant face reality so they stay positive in la la land

… so says the grumpy old man

[DougDew]

9 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

My forum game is lacking. I haven't been keeping receipts.

There is a difference. 

 

When you are the one being confronted over posts simply made on the forum, you do notice a pattern from those who confront you.

 

OTOH, if you are not being confronted...and are the one doing the confronting......its weird to stalk posters you don't like and keep receipts about what they say on various threads to try to claim they are liars about their own opinion's.  

[ColtStrong2013]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

There is a difference. 

 

When you are the one being confronted over posts simply made on the forum, you do notice a pattern from those who confront you.

 

OTOH, if you are not being confronted...and are the one doing the confronting......its weird to stalk posters you don't like and keep receipts about what they say on various threads to try to claim they are liars about their own opinion's.  

i was making a funny about it. I’m not going to keep track of stuff that was said on here. I’m just here to white-knight for Ballard… 

 

since 2013. 😂 

[CoachLite]

Fans tend to blame one person - Ballard, Irsay, the head coach du jour - but it is always a team effort to achieve a mediocre outcome. It is a "camel is a race horse designed by committee" problem. I see the problem as different perspectives being compromised down to some average (regression to the mean), not having one, clear vision that everyone can get  behind. Honestly, I don't see that changing, even though the people may have the individual skills to be successful.

 

My opinion is, the Colts couldn't identify a good head coach if their lives depended on it - given the organizational structure and people we have running the show. We end up taking whoever is available. This is not to say the Shane Steichen isn't going to be a good head coach (he's a rookie, and makes a lot of rookie mistakes). I just don't see the fan base being patient enough to to put up with years of mediocre results. There's not good reason why they should.

[DougDew]

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

It’s not that I keep receipts.   It’s that Doug’s viewpoints are unique and memorable.   He also objects to being held accountable.  

You're not accountable in acknowledging how you screw up so many posts by reading everything through some sort of Ballard saving white knight filter.  Perfect example:

• And throughout those 6 years, I have said that we will never reach the level of perennial playoff contender by having elite players in less valuable positions, and, that we need playmakers. 

Ballard is not in that sentence.  But you, and other's perhaps, see it through a potential-opportunity-to-white-knight-for-Ballard filter.  Somebody might read it as negative towards Ballard, so you need to beat down the comment (up until this year  for most other posters)....and with your style...you beat down the poster.

 

Its not a comment on Ballard.  Why?  Because I'm not stupid enough to not think that AP, Downs, Paye, Brents, Jones, Cross could develop into those playmakers.  We may have already picked them, they may already be on the roster, and they just need more than two years to show their pro-bowl/All-pro abilities.

 

That bullet point reflects a sincere opinion about what any NFL team needs to look like post 2010, no matter who the GM is, We haven't had it.  That's a fact.  We have also focused on nonpremium positions.  That's a fact.  If a reader is so GM obsessed/worried/concerned as to then take those ideas and filter them through how it makes Ballard look....then get upset about it......THAT's ON THEM.   Don't accuse me of spinning some sort of mental spiderweb that catches people with passive-aggressive attacks on Ballard just because I compare our team to what I think a playoff team should look like....then say I'm lying. 

 

 

 

[DougDew]

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

It’s not that I keep receipts.   It’s that Doug’s viewpoints are unique and memorable.   He also objects to being held accountable.  

BTW, if my viewpoint being unique and memorable is actually the root of your beef, why not just wait a few years to see if they are right instead of pouncing on them the moment they are made...for being unique and nonconforming I guess.

[OLD FAN MAN]

23 hours ago, DougDew said:

You are taking this thread somewhere nobody cares about.  

 

For six years, we have gone back and forth because you persistently confront me to tell me what my opinion is.  Now, its that I have contempt for Ballard, and have had it for 6 years.  

 

Maybe you are just a bully, and have confronted me over posts I have made that you didn't like...and all bully's get frustrated when they swing and miss...and the target doesn't back down. 

 

• When Luck was still playing, I commented that it was not "Grigsys Oline" that got Luck killed, but that him holding the  ball too long was a big contributor, you confronted me (as did others).
• I said I did not like the Hooker pick...first pick right off...when the forum loved it.  You confronted my over my non-love of the pick.
• I was not enthused over the Nelson pick...never hated it...just not enthused like the rest of the forum.  I was one of the few posters back then who introduced...introduced...the concept of positional value to many on the forum.  You confronted me over my comments.
• When Hines was a backup RB, I said I couldn't see why he has a roster spot as a backup RB.  This is when the forum was praising him for "all of the things he could do"  and that he was a star that was just not being used correctly.  You confronted me over my comment about Hines.
• I commented that JT is exactly the RB he was in college, straight ahead between the tackles mainly big-play fast guy without elite shake and bake.  You've said that me not saying he's elite is some passive shot at Ballard.
• And throughout those 6 years, I have said that we will never reach the level of perennial playoff contender by picking elite players in less valuable positions, and, that we need playmakers.  That reality has finally hit a lot of members like a 2 x 4 upside the head, because that's all I hardly read anymore, about how we need playmakers.

Maybe bullies just hate it when the target doesn't back down and is a lot more right than wrong.  Must be frustrating.

 

If you notice, closely if you can, none of those positions are actually CRITICAL of Ballard.  They merely burst a gush bubble that was formed over "his genius".  Please don't confuse bursting a gush bubble with contempt.  

 

I liked the Smith, Leonard, Pitt, JT, Cross, Blackmon, AP, Raimann, and many other picks based upon the combo of skill, need, and draft spot.  Those are not the sexy picks people talk about, so they don't get much press.

 

Next, since I won't gush over AR until he sustains gushability for a couple of seasons...if he does...you might also confuse my nongushy comments with me trying to find a reason to take a passive passive shot at Ballard because of my "contempt".

it makes some people feel important to be a keyboard bully. they like to hide behind a keyboard and spew out verbal abuse from their safe place behind their keyboard, some of them are not satisfied with their personal  lives and  put on a mask of being a nice person face to face with people. I feel sorry for people like that who have such miserable lives that they enjoy being a keyboard bully

[NewColtsFan]

16 hours ago, DougDew said:

BTW, if my viewpoint being unique and memorable is actually the root of your beef, why not just wait a few years to see if they are right instead of pouncing on them the moment they are made...for being unique and nonconforming I guess.

What are you talking about?   I literally noted you have a documented 6 year anti-Ballard track record.  2018-2023.   So I did wait.

You act as if this is the first time I’ve ever brought this up.   It’s been going on for 6 years when you proclaimed that you thought Ballard was getting too much credit, and that Ryan Grigson was getting treated badly by this community.   That was 2018. 
 

I have no beef with you having unique or memorable views.   I’m the holder of many unique and unpopular views.  But I can defend myself.    And yet, you’ve been here 10 years and yesterday was the first time you’ve ever referred to me as a bully.  I’ve had other posters make that claim over the years, but I wasn’t surprised by any of them.   Your comment (I think you made it roughly a half dozen times) caught me off guard.   All the exchanges we’ve had for 10 years and you’ve never once called me that, so clearly I struck a nerve.  That was not my intention.   I just thought we were having a vigorous, if not somewhat heated debate.  
 

And let’s not forget, it was just about two weeks ago when you publicly posted to me that you and I agree more than we disagree.  There was no bully talk.  Ironically, I replied that I didn’t understand you saying that because from my vantage point we rarely agree.  
 

You’ve written two posts today and didn’t respond to my detailed comments, so I don’t even know if you read my post?  Your call.   If you don’t want me to engage with you, just say so.  But if we’re going to continue to engage with each other, then we’ve got to find some common ground, an understanding.   Because clearly things went sideways yesterday.  I’d like to avoid that in the future.