Colts offseason discussion / Ballard Grievances (merge)

[John Waylon]

3 minutes ago, 1959Colts said:

If the Colts finish last in the division this year, does that get Ballard fired?

It should. It absolutely should. 

[Hark]

2 hours ago, CoachLite said:

Not much to laugh at, is there?

So much to laugh at. The histrionics are next level.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

The sad thing this team is a solid team. Ballard had one job and so far has failed. I don’t care about Rollie’s on defense we draft because it won’t help this year. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Solid84 said:

Green: You think we've changed focus? I still think it's trenches first and even to the point some positions get neglected. There's been loads of discussion on here about maybe drafting a CB in the 1st and I just don't see Ballard doing it. If we do acutally draft a WR in the 1st I guess it could point to a change of philosophy.

 

I don't think there's any shift in positional focus in the draft, with the exception of taking Richardson at #4. But when Ballard takes a DT in the first round, it will reinforce what he's always done and what we've always known about him.

 

Quote

Blue: I hope we don't start throwing money on every big name FA on the market. I do wish Ballard would start bringing in more solid, young players in FA who we could build around. I don't think using solely the draft is ever going to get us there, because there's always going to be misses. You need to cover those misses with solid FA talent in my opinion.

 

I didn't expect much from the Colts in free agency, so it's kind of confusing to me that people are so frustrated with the Colts for not doing much in free agency. To me, this was obvious. To some extent, I thought we might sign a veteran corner, and I think they looked into it. I thought they'd replace Grover with a cheaper option; instead they kept Grover, so that eliminates the need to replace him (but they still signed Davis...) That's about it. 

 

The success or failure of the Colts with Ballard will be based on how well they hit in the draft, and how well the QB plays. That's what Ballard is tying his legacy to, and it will either work out well, or it will fail. But hoping that Ballard suddenly changes his philosophy and approach seems like people baited themselves into believing in something that had zero chance of happening. We saw this play out in real time with the Sneed deal. Everyone should have known that it wasn't going down.

 

So for me, watching all the strong reactions to what the Colts have done, a big part of it for me is 'did you really expect something different?' 

[ColtStrong2013]

1 minute ago, Solid84 said:

Red: Isn't this the whole basis of how to build the team though? If this stay the same how will the team change for the better?

 

Green: You think we've changed focus? I still think it's trenches first and even to the point some positions get neglected. There's been loads of discussion on here about maybe drafting a CB in the 1st and I just don't see Ballard doing it. If we do acutally draft a WR in the 1st I guess it could point to a change of philosophy.

 

Blue: I hope we don't start throwing money on every big name FA on the market. I do wish Ballard would start bringing in more solid, young players in FA who we could build around. I don't think using solely the draft is ever going to get us there, because there's always going to be misses. You need to cover those misses with solid FA talent in my opinion.

Red- it is the whole basis, and like I said in the aspect of free agency, it’s because I don’t see the Colts being that active in free agency. Regardless of who is gm. It was tried under Grigson, and did not work.  It’s clearly been a struggle to attract bigger names under Ballard. (Ie- Hunter this year) 

 

Green-  Yes I think it’s changed in hiring Steichen, drafting a qb top 5 for the first time in Ballard’s career and having success with players like Raimann and Downs. He was willing to take some lumps at left tackle to develop Raimann. Of course the concept is still in the trenches. I don’t think people realize how many successful teams has that same mentality, the difference has been more hits at key positions and especially qb. Chiefs, eagles certainly come to mind on the focus on trenches. 

 

Blue- I’m not sure we’ll ever “build around” free agents. That goes under the same sentiment that I expressed above. Free agency will be used to complement the roster and fill needs. He hasn’t done poorly at that- (Houston, Gilmore, Autry, Ebukam). His mentality of not knowing players in free agency, versus the guys that grow from within resonates with me. The Texans don’t know what kind of worker/teammate they are getting in Diggs. They just know his production and are willing to ignore the noise in hopes it elevates them to a championship contender. Not to say it cannot… But it’s just not what Ballard believes in, and especially to build around. He’s made it clear who he building around the past 12 months…

[1959Colts]

4 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

It should. It absolutely should. 

Houston seems to be the consensus to win the division, the other three teams closely grouped together for 2nd 3rd and 4th place.

[Solid84]

11 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

By most indicators of fans when they are contenders. I’ve long argued that the Irsay’s might see it differently. With Jim’s health, they might value having calm reasonable voices internally to the approach of the organization as a whole. I would argue that Ballard’s ability to keep the media toned down is a huge plus. Especially with the gravity of the news that has circulated with the boss, Andrew luck’s retirement, coaching changes, etc. Team seems to be doing well to keep the fans spending money at the games. 
 

I dont think trying makes anyone right. I think a lot of luck does. Did Houston drafting Stroud at 3 make them right, or was it more luck that the panthers who jumped them didn’t? Would they have the same success with the little man? 

I think that's a good indicator. I do think that winning solves everything in a sport like football. Soothes the fans and the media. Calms the waters so to speak. I get what you're saying, and it may well be what the Irsays want right now, I just think it's the wrong approach.

 

I think "trying" is a very bad way of meassuring how successful a GM is. I think a lot of owners agree, because the average GM tenure is about 5 years I believe.

 

The Texans/Stroud thing is difficult to comment on, because we don't know what the Texans knew. Did they have reason to believe Young was the Panthers' guy and decided to stay put? Did they just decide to pick whoever was there and lucked out with Stroud? Was Reich the reason Young looked bad his rookie season? How would Stroud and AR have looked with the Panthers and Reich?

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, 1959Colts said:

If the Colts finish last in the division this year, does that get Ballard fired?

 

3 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

It should. It absolutely should. 

 

Unless there are significant injuries, I think he would be. In fact, even if there are significant injuries...

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Ballard has spent so much money on DT that would show how clueless he is and has no intention of immediately helping this team win.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Fans spend their hard earned money on tickets and merchandise. Not to mention their time watching this team play. They deserve better. If your waiting on every player to develop your never going to get better.

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, 1959Colts said:

Houston seems to be the consensus to win the division, the other three teams closely grouped together for 2nd 3rd and 4th place.

HOU is at least one season ahead of us in terms of roster build.

JAX is probably one season ahead too.  2023 a down year as Trevor played through injuries because of no viable backup, JMO.

TEN, probably one season below us.

 

On paper, it looks like 3rd in the South.  

[Yoshinator]

11 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

It’s always a crap shoot hiring a new GM with their philosophy ect. Colds need Ballard to succeed so we don’t have to worry about the consequences of a new GM.

Yeah, I generally want to keep Steichen and have him work with AR. Ballard getting fired would cause us to lose Steichen and possibly AR and that would mean another rebuild. I don't like Ballard, but seeing him finally succeed 8 years later would be better than the alternative of a rebuild with another new GM.

[Yoshinator]

7 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

The sad thing this team is a solid team. Ballard had one job and so far has failed. I don’t care about Rollie’s on defense we draft because it won’t help this year. 

It is. The secondary and receivers are problems, but this team has talented players. We just need to be more aggressive as the AFC South is much better now, the AFC is tough in general, and we aren't getting better. We are just re-signing our own. 

[Yoshinator]

5 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Ballard has spent so much money on DT that would show how clueless he is and has no intention of immediately helping this team win.

Yep. We need to give AR help. Got to pretend he is the guy already and give him a team to compete with as if he is the guy. No proving himself. Ballard said he had him rated as the top player in last years draft. If that's true and not wordspeak, build around him like he's the guy then.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Just now, Yoshinator said:

It is. The secondary and receivers are problems, but this team has talented players. We just need to be more aggressive as the AFC South is much better now, the AFC is tough in general, and we aren't getting better. We are just re-signing our own. 

I am not worried about offense. They will add to the WR group whether that’s at 15 or 46. Taylor and AR will be explosive allowing WR to be a lot more open. The secondary needed retooled and that should of been his main job.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

As far as not wanting to add Diggs.  That discussion in the dedicated thread was about trading our pick 15 and our 4th for Diggs.  Of course a lot of folks wouldn't want that.  But it would be disingenuous for them to still say they would not want Diggs after knowing that he could have been had for only a future 2nd and change, without recalibrating their answer by including that new information.

 

You're absolutely wrong about this, and trying to rewrite history.

 

Comments from that thread:

Drama queen

Not a long term solution

Can't stand Diggs, true diva

Not interested, trade for a guy who has more than 1-3 years

Very likely to be deteriorating

This is a terrific draft for WRs, no thanks

I don't think he's right for the Colts

Cancer to the locker room

Cancer - hard pass

 

I personally would not want Diggs, period. I think others feel the same. There's a reason the Bills are eating $31m in cap penalties to get rid of him. 

 

Some might be more open to trading for Diggs for less than a first rounder. It is not disingenuous for someone to say they would not want Diggs, no matter the cost.

[ColtStrong2013]

10 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I think that's a good indicator. I do think that winning solves everything in a sport like football. Soothes the fans and the media. Calms the waters so to speak. I get what you're saying, and it may well be what the Irsays want right now, I just think it's the wrong approach.

 

I think "trying" is a very bad way of meassuring how successful a GM is. I think a lot of owners agree, because the average GM tenure is about 5 years I believe.

 

The Texans/Stroud thing is difficult to comment on, because we don't know what the Texans knew. Did they have reason to believe Young was the Panthers' guy and decided to stay put? Did they just decide to pick whoever was there and lucked out with Stroud? Was Reich the reason Young looked bad his rookie season? How would Stroud and AR have looked with the Panthers and Reich?

My point on the Irsay’s is with Jim’s health, they may feel they have no choice but to be patient and hope this plan works. Do they have time to tear it down and rebuild? Does Jim Irsay even want to be part of that with serious health concerns? Or does he truly want to witness a contender, and knows with maybe only a handful of years left, this is the best chance for that? I think it’s the only chance given a timeframe of a 2-4 year window. That’s my opinion. that’s not saying he’s not going to be around by that period of time, but maybe he’s preparing for that… 

 

Trying is an interesting thing regarding GM’s. There are lot of risk takers out there, for the exact reason you just showed- average is roughly 5 years? That’s not much time. Ballard, by all accounts is one of the most organized executives in the league. From my management experience, it’s hard to argue with someone that can show you their exact plan in full detail, where the hiccups were, what they could have done differently, how they viewed risk of certain decision making, etc. Without knowing for a fact, I would say that Chris Ballard has detailed documentation on every move, every conversation, every action and issue that has happened over the past 8 years. He might even have enough to paint a really negative picture in a lawsuit in court against the organization. Who knows. If he’s been squeaky clean as an executive and has documentation, that’s either a great asset or a horrible liability against an organization, depending on how you treat them. 
 

I won’t talk much about the Texans. I realize I opened the door, and now I’m walking out of it. lol. You can keep it open, but I’m not coming back in…

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I am not worried about offense. They will add to the WR group whether that’s at 15 or 46. Taylor and AR will be explosive allowing WR to be a lot more open. The secondary needed retooled and that should of been his main job.

I didn't just mean WR, I also meant TEs when I said receivers. Not sure if that changes your position or not.

[1959Colts]

Just now, DougDew said:

HOU is at least one season ahead of us in terms of roster build.

JAX is probably one season a way.  2023 a down year as Trevor played through injuries because of no viable backup, JMO.

TEN, probably one season below us.

 

On paper, it looks like 3rd in the South.  

I agree. Although I'm certainly not crowning the Texans.

We always seem to loose to the Jags. (How many more times will Jamal Agnew have big kick or punt return before we learn?) 

The Titans are the wildcard. New coach, no Henry or Tannehill. Year two for Levis. Calvin Ridley. Hard to predict with them

[Solid84]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

I didn't expect much from the Colts in free agency, so it's kind of confusing to me that people are so frustrated with the Colts for not doing much in free agency. To me, this was obvious. To some extent, I thought we might sign a veteran corner, and I think they looked into it. I thought they'd replace Grover with a cheaper option; instead they kept Grover, so that eliminates the need to replace him (but they still signed Davis...) That's about it. 

 

The success or failure of the Colts with Ballard will be based on how well they hit in the draft, and how well the QB plays. That's what Ballard is tying his legacy to, and it will either work out well, or it will fail. But hoping that Ballard suddenly changes his philosophy and approach seems like people baited themselves into believing in something that had zero chance of happening. We saw this play out in real time with the Sneed deal. Everyone should have known that it wasn't going down.

 

So for me, watching all the strong reactions to what the Colts have done, a big part of it for me is 'did you really expect something different?' 

I don't know what I expected this offseason, because we've never been in this situation under Ballard - young QB on a rookie deal.

 

I never expected him to just go ham and sign top players left and right. I think there were some obvious areas where a good veteran could be a bigger asset to this team than drafting a rookie (or worse getting a nobody) - CB and FS - and I hoped this is exactly what he would do. He did the "tried" thing and I just disagree that's something to applaud.

 

As I said to ColtStrong2013, I think we've misallocated our ressources and I hoped Ballard would try and remedy that. Instead he doubled down on it.

 

I'm just really disappointed with Ballard's direction.

[Solid84]

14 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Red- it is the whole basis, and like I said in the aspect of free agency, it’s because I don’t see the Colts being that active in free agency. Regardless of who is gm. It was tried under Grigson, and did not work.  It’s clearly been a struggle to attract bigger names under Ballard. (Ie- Hunter this year) 

 

Green-  Yes I think it’s changed in hiring Steichen, drafting a qb top 5 for the first time in Ballard’s career and having success with players like Raimann and Downs. He was willing to take some lumps at left tackle to develop Raimann. Of course the concept is still in the trenches. I don’t think people realize how many successful teams has that same mentality, the difference has been more hits at key positions and especially qb. Chiefs, eagles certainly come to mind on the focus on trenches. 

 

Blue- I’m not sure we’ll ever “build around” free agents. That goes under the same sentiment that I expressed above. Free agency will be used to complement the roster and fill needs. He hasn’t done poorly at that- (Houston, Gilmore, Autry, Ebukam). His mentality of not knowing players in free agency, versus the guys that grow from within resonates with me. The Texans don’t know what kind of worker/teammate they are getting in Diggs. They just know his production and are willing to ignore the noise in hopes it elevates them to a championship contender. Not to say it cannot… But it’s just not what Ballard believes in, and especially to build around. He’s made it clear who he building around the past 12 months…

I'll give you a response later - gotta go do the Gavin's Mock Draft thing. Good talk, though. I appreciate a good football discussion.

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You're absolutely wrong about this, and trying to rewrite history.

 

Comments from that thread:

Drama queen

Not a long term solution

Can't stand Diggs, true diva

Not interested, trade for a guy who has more than 1-3 years

Very likely to be deteriorating

This is a terrific draft for WRs, no thanks

I don't think he's right for the Colts

Cancer to the locker room

Cancer - hard pass

 

I personally would not want Diggs, period. I think others feel the same. There's a reason the Bills are eating $31m in cap penalties to get rid of him. 

 

Some might be more open to trading for Diggs for less than a first rounder. It is not disingenuous for someone to say they would not want Diggs, no matter the cost.

Huh?  Did I say everybody?  Were there not answers that talked about price too? 

 

Why did you leave off the part about recalibrating the price into the discussion.  Those answers are still in the context of the price of pick 15.  Its easy for someone to say those extreme things if the price of the player is already a fixed cost and not part of the equation.

 

Maybe they decide to risk living with him for a season if the price is cheap.

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, 1959Colts said:

no Henry

Addition by subtraction.  Getting their offense out of 1997 is probably worth 2 games.  He'll work with BAL though.

[1959Colts]

Just now, DougDew said:

Addition by subtraction.  Getting their offense out of 1997 is probably worth 2 games.  He'll work with BAL though.

I just meant that he always killed us

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

The offense is going to get better just getting Richardson back and woods back. They need one more play maker. Hopefully that’s at 15 and rest of draft is defense.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, 1959Colts said:

I just meant that he always killed us

No I get it.  I was just saying that TEN could be more of a threat now that they are liberating their offense.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Huh?  Why did you leave off the part about recalibrating the price into the discussion.  Those answers are still in the context of the price of pick 15.  Its easy for someone to say those extreme things if the price of the player is already a fixed cost and not part of the equation.

 

Maybe they decide to risk living with him for a season if the price is cheap.

 

I didn't.

 

But do you think "can't stand Diggs, true diva" gets softened to 'can't stand Diggs, true diva, but I'll take him for a second rounder'? 

 

I also don't think the price for Diggs turned out to be "cheap." It's a second + $19m. Cheaper than a first, sure. Still a considerable cost.

 

And like I said, there are some of us who would not have wanted Diggs, period. Recalibrating the cost is not relevant for them.

[adubb84]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

Grigson loved that line too. Betting on the rookies you drafted the year prior making a leap and the incoming rookie class being the solution to last seasons problems is playing with fire IMO. It worked with LT and RG this year as Raiman and Fries took big leaps, but that’s not going to work every time.

 

And betting on the draft fixing your issues is also a gamble when our GM likes traits based players. And that’s kind of been the identity of this team. Always 2-3 years out because we’re waiting on players to develop. I heard a quote once that said you use free agency to plug holes, and the draft to supplement FA. It’s seems Ballard is doing it in reverse.

 

It just seems like a lot to put all your money on your 1st and 2nd year players to improve the team.

Yeah - I couldn’t have put it any better than that. I just think folks were expecting him to break out of his regiment seeing that Richardson showed promise, so ergo “why not” be more aggressive if you feel you have that dude?  I’ll wait until we get the actual season, but we are putting an expectational amount stress on our developing players to perform next year. 

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I didn't.

 

But do you think "can't stand Diggs, true diva" gets softened to 'can't stand Diggs, true diva, but I'll take him for a second rounder'? 

 

I also don't think the price for Diggs turned out to be "cheap." It's a second + $19m. Cheaper than a first, sure. Still a considerable cost.

 

And like I said, there are some of us who would not have wanted Diggs, period. Recalibrating the cost is not relevant for them.

Sure, there are some that don't want Diggs at any price.  I was pointing out that the entire thread was based on the premise that Diggs and his baggage would come with a really expensive price tag.  I think for many...not all... to go back to those thoughts without recalibrating the cost of Diggs would not be an honest response.  They may come up with the same answer they had before, IDK

 

Chloe was being cornered by wolves, and her defense was that nobody wanted Diggs anyway.  Well, many would probably at least consider it based upon the price being lower than previously discussed.

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I don't know what I expected this offseason, because we've never been in this situation under Ballard - young QB on a rookie deal.

 

I never expected him to just go ham and sign top players left and right. I think there were some obvious areas where a good veteran could be a bigger asset to this team than drafting a rookie (or worse getting a nobody) - CB and FS - and I hoped this is exactly what he would do. He did the "tried" thing and I just disagree that's something to applaud.

 

As I said to ColtStrong2013, I think we've misallocated our ressources and I hoped Ballard would try and remedy that. Instead he doubled down on it.

 

I'm just really disappointed with Ballard's direction.

 

Not a lot to disagree with here. Just seems like the same discussion from two weeks ago, and now the Texans trade for a player that most people didn't want to begin with, and it starts all over again. Like John Waylon said, it's salt in the wound, but maybe everyone should try a bandaid so that wound isn't so exposed. 

 

By the way, I'm not giving Ballard credit for trying. But it does rub me the wrong way when people say stuff like they don't care about improving the team. They have a different vision than you prefer, that doesn't mean they don't care. To me, that's nonsense. So I think when people bring up the 'trying,' it's in response to these very bold claims that ignore the trying. It's still a bottom line business, either you build a good roster or you don't. 

[coach kline]

On 3/26/2024 at 8:22 PM, Superman said:

 

I thought it would be more. My projection was four years, $84m. I think his market is pretty clear, and it's a big part of why I never expected the Colts to make the move in the first place.

 

 

I mean, do you like AD Mitchell? If the Colts traded down and came away with him later in the first, what's the problem?

And we got where? No where.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Sure, there are some that don't want Diggs at any price.  I was pointing out that the entire thread was based on the premise that Diggs and his baggage would come with a really expensive price tag.  I think for many...not all... to go back to those thoughts without recalibrating the cost of Diggs would not be an honest response.  They may come up with the same answer they had before, IDK

 

Chloe was being cornered by wolves, and her defense was that nobody wanted Diggs anyway.  Well, many would probably at least consider it based upon the price being lower than previously discussed.

 

That thread was brought up in response to your claim that no one even knew Diggs might be available, which was incorrect. Then you said it's disingenuous to say that people would not want Diggs for a second rounder, and I think it's obvious that that's incorrect. I just think you're wrong on this.

 

Sure, some people would reconsider trading for Diggs for a 2025 second rounder vs a 2024 first rounder. If you had simply said that, I would not have pushed back.

 

As for Chloe being cornered by wolves, I think that's an interesting and overly sensational way to describe what happened. But if any poster is getting called out for their way of posting, they should either be prepared to defend themselves, or think about adjusting their style and substance. If you want to armor up and defend that poster against the "wolves," that's your call. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Sure, there are some that don't want Diggs at any price.  I was pointing out that the entire thread was based on the premise that Diggs and his baggage would come with a really expensive price tag.  I think for many...not all... to go back to those thoughts without recalibrating the cost of Diggs would not be an honest response.  They may come up with the same answer they had before, IDK

 

Chloe was being cornered by wolves, and her defense was that nobody wanted Diggs anyway.  Well, many would probably at least consider it based upon the price being lower than previously discussed.

To be fair I was trying to say that this entire thing and being mad at Ballard had nothing to do with diggs going to Texans. No one was saying why didn’t Ballard do it. It is accumulation of not making one move that might improve their chances while the other teams in the division are at least trying.

 

Ballards approach has failed for 8 years. So there is proof it has not worked. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, coach kline said:

And we got where? No where.

 

That's really astute. Thanks for that contribution.

[jvan1973]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

That's really astute. Thanks for that contribution.

"Laugh emoji"

[ColtStrong2013]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

it does rub me the wrong way when people say stuff like they don't care about improving the team. They have a different vision than you prefer, that doesn't mean they don't care. To me, that's nonsense.

Amen. 
 

As if Chris Ballard didn’t dedicate his entire career to professional football to get, maybe in high likelihood, one shot at being a General Manager of a multi-billion dollar professional franchise… Only to not care about trying to make them successful. And by successful, I mean a championship caliber team year in and out. And as if there aren’t 31 other General Manager’s who dedicated the same time to do the exact same. Not to mention the hundreds of lower level executives that are busting their butts the same way Chris and the 31 other GM’s did, just to have that one shot at not trying or caring to improve the franchise that pays them millions of dollars a year, altering their families lives forever. 😂 

Just now, jvan1973 said:

"Laugh emoji"

“Another laugh emoji. But with tears.” 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Just now, ColtStrong2013 said:

Amen. 
 

As if Chris Ballard didn’t dedicate his entire career to professional football to get, maybe in high likelihood, one shot at being a General Manager of a multi-billion dollar professional franchise… Only to not care about trying to make them successful. And by successful, I mean a championship caliber team year in and out. And as if there aren’t 31 other General Manager’s who dedicated the same time to do the exact same. Not to mention the hundreds of lower level executives that are busting their butts the same way Chris and the 31 other GM’s did, just to have that one shot at not trying or caring to improve the franchise that pays them millions of dollars a year, altering their families lives forever. 😂 

What have the last 8 years got him. Don’t you think  when your approach isn’t working you should at least tweet your approach. Ballard has not and he has a losing record. He would of been fired 2 or 3 years ago if he was a GM on any other team.

[ColtStrong2013]

Just now, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

What have the last 8 years got him. Don’t you think  when your approach isn’t working you should at least tweet your approach. Ballard has not and he has a losing record. He would of been fired 2 or 3 years ago if he was a GM on any other team.

we know Chloe… he doesn’t care. 

[jvan1973]

2 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

To be fair I was trying to say that this entire thing and being mad at Ballard had nothing to do with diggs going to Texans. No one was saying why didn’t Ballard do it. It is accumulation of not making one move that might improve their chances while the other teams in the division are at least trying.

 

Ballards approach has failed for 8 years. So there is proof it has not worked. 

What proof is there that the other teams in the division have been great in the last 8 years?   Ballard built a team that missed the playoffs by one game with a backup qb.   

[ColtStrong2013]

Just now, jvan1973 said:

What proof is there that the other teams in the division have been great in the last 8 years?   Ballard built a team that missed the playoffs by one game with a backup qb.   

And after making the “tweaks” that Chloe claims were never made in 8 years…